|
Why is the length of the campaign a problem?
Because it takes time away from doing the People’s Business.
This problem is deeply intertwined with the issue of
Term
Limits. If we establish
a limit of just one consecutive term for every federal office, this
eliminates the problem of elected officials campaigning while in
office.
Why is the expense of the campaign a
problem? The amount of
money that goes into federal elections is obscene and it’s a waste.
For example the total net expenditure reported by all
candidates during the 2007-08 presidential election was over $13
billion; the total net expenditure for the 2007-08 and
2009-10 senate races, which filled 72 of 100 seats, was over $1
billion; and the total net expenditure for the 2009-10
house
elections was just under $1 billion.
What could we do with an extra $15-$16 billion dollars?
To put this amount
of money into perspective, the President’s
proposed budget for
fiscal 2013 includes “$30
billion to modernize at least 35,000 schools…. $2.2 billion for
advanced manufacturing R&D… and funding for biomedical research at
NIH ($30.7 billion)....”
Based on these figures, with the money currently being spent on
campaigning, we could modernize 17,500 schools, completely fund the
manufacturing R&D effort, or provide half the funding requested for
National Institutes of Health biomedical research.
Laws and Loopholes
A variety of laws have been passed, starting in 1867, to try to
control the federal campaign process.
The purpose of these regulations has been to try to
ensure the integrity of our elections by limiting contributions
(and therefore influence) from the very wealthy and special
interests, by controlling campaign funding sources and
expenditures, and by requiring public disclosure of campaign
finances.
There was little enforcement of any regulation until the Federal
Election Commission was created for that purpose by the 1974
amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
The 1974 amendments also established the system currently
used for public financing of presidential elections and set
limits on both contributions and expenditures in all Federal
elections.
These limits immediately became the subject of a challenge in
the Supreme Court in a case known as
Buckley v. Valeo, which was decided in 1976.
The Court upheld the contribution limits as being
necessary to safeguard the integrity of elections, but found
that limits on expenditures, except by publicly financed
candidates, abridged free speech.
The Federal Election Commission was responsible, in a 1978
administrative ruling, for creating the distinction between
“hard” and “soft” money.
It declared that the funding rules established by law
only applied to political campaigns and not to “party building”
activities. “Hard”
money was money acquired and spent according to campaign finance
law, and “soft” money was unregulated.
Unfortunately, the FEC never clearly defined what a
“party building” activity was.
Years later, during the 1987-88 presidential campaign, both
parties discovered a loophole in the 1978 ruling, and “issue
ads” were born.
Issue ads fell through the cracks of the law; they could say
everything a campaign ad could, except “vote for candidate X.”
Since these ads supposedly did not promote a particular
candidate, they could be paid for with soft money, which is much
easier to get in large quantities than hard money, which has
limits on both donation size and source.
The
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the
McCain-Feingold Act, attempted to regulate soft money and issue ads.
Again the Supreme Court got involved, and in a 5-4 decision
known as
Citizens United,
it struck down major portions of the BCRA which it considered to
unconstitutionally limit free speech.
In equating monetary expenditure with free speech, the court
favored the deep pockets of PACs, unions, and other corporate
entities to influence elections.
In addition, in deciding in favor of the “free speech” rights
of corporations, this ruling took the step of granting Bill of
Rights protections to non-persons.
Shortly thereafter, the Court of Appeals ruled in another
case,
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission,
that PACs which only made “independent expenditures” could accept
unlimited donations.
These two rulings combined to allow the creation of what we
know as “Super PACs.”
Recently the Supreme Court again stepped in, invalidating a
100-year-old Montana law regulating corporate contributions at the
state level, and opening the way for Super PAC involvement in state
and local elections.
Our Conclusion
It appears to us that the courts, the PACs and the parties are
the obstacles to a fair and commonsense electoral process. There are no proposals currently before Congress,
however, though Senator
McCain, co-sponsor of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),
has been
highly critical of recent developments and recent court rulings
regarding Campaign Finance.
(VIEW PROPOSALS)
The Supreme Court has not even been consistent in its opinions.
The justices overturn the Bill of Rights when it pleases
them, in the name of “the government’s interest” … for security
(as in the recent
strip-search ruling) or for the integrity of
elections. But they
don’t see, or won’t recognize, that expenditures affect
elections just as much as contributions.
Public funding is a good idea that doesn’t function in the
political environment today.
Public funding won’t work unless all the candidates
accept it. A
publicly funded candidate cannot compete in a world where money
can buy as much “free speech” as an organization can afford.
|
