Here we go again. America is barreling toward another Congressional election funded largely by special interests, many of whom don't even live here. As we've turned campaigns into auctions, our politicians have become indentured servants, beholden to those who finance campaigns.
As of early September, over six million dollars had been given to Congressional candidates by fat cats and lobbyists in each of four zip codes within Washington DC. In fact, seven of the top ten contributing districts so far this election are in Washington (the other three are in Manhattan.)
Is it any wonder that Congress listens more to special interests inside the beltway than to students or people of middle America?
Money has become the dominant factor in deciding who runs for office, who wins elections, and who has influence and power after the vote is over. Many of the nation's finest leaders don't run for public office, either because they can't raise the money, or because they refuse to pander to big money tycoons. Far too often campaign funders play the role of king makers; deciding which candidates will be viable long before the voters get their say.
Once the field is narrowed to those with personal wealth or those backed by special interest cash, the winner is usually determined by who spends the most. In the past two elections for the House of Representatives, the average winner spent more than twice as much as the average loser. Well before Congress votes on a single bill, the deck is stacked in favor of wealthy interests who ensure that sympathetic politicians will be in office. Corruption starts long before the Constitution's checks and balances can come into play.
After the election, campaign donors reap their rewards with special access to members of Congress. Sometimes the access runs so deep that lobbyists are invited to draft legislation to benefit their clients, as we save in the attempted rewriting of the Clean Water Act by polluters last year.
When all is said and done, only rarely do special interests need to explicitly swap contributions for votes. The privileged position of big money has already influenced who does the voting, and what they will vote on. But lobbyists are not above using money as leverage. Until recently, exposed politicians had no qualms about handing out tobacco PAC checks to their colleagues on the floor of Congress.
As one corporate lobbyist boasted recently, "That's how Congress works. We buy them. That's why they have to sell. We all make out by selling what we have to sell. Then they pretend they're doing it for the public good."
Doesn't sound much like what the founders of our country had in mind. It's high time that we get serious about restoring democracy in America to a system where people control government, not money. We must pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow Congress and the states to set mandatory limits on campaign spending, contributions and use of personal wealth.
Why such serious measures? Couldn't Congress pass legislation to handle this problem? Unfortunately not. Congress did set limits on campaign spending and use of personal wealth in 1974. However, the Supreme Court, in the controversial and misguided ruling of Buckley vs. Valeo, struck down the law claiming that limiting money in politics was a limit on free speech.
When we equate money with speech, then speech is no longer free. The right to speak out becomes available only to those who can afford it. That's what is happening in America and it's wrong. We're becoming less and less of a democracy, and more and more a special interest plutocracy.
There are a host of ideas as to how to best fix things. Providing candidates with substantial free and reduced cost access to TV, radio, and mailings is a good place to start. Let's also create a national voter initiative and referendum process to get around Congressional self-interest in preserving the status quo. Setting $100 contribution limits on contributions by PACs and individuals and restricting out of district contributions should also be part of the mix. But there is no getting around the need for tough, mandatory limits on campaign spending and use of personal wealth.
There are those who argue against reforms which might conflict with bad court decisions. But we're kidding ourselves if we think we can dance around the absurd notion that money equals free speech and therefore can't be limited.
We must take down the "For Sale" sign posted on Capitol Hill. Any serious reform proposal starts with a Constitutional Amendment to allow the states and Congress to craft reforms that would take government out of the pockets of special interests and put it back into the hands of the people. There can be no meaningful reform unless we're willing to limit money in politics.
