As Supreme Court Hears Landmark Campaign Finance Case, Public Funding Solution is Missing

When the United States Supreme Court today rehears the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), it will be calling into question no less than sixty years of established precedent limiting corporate spending in federal elections.

The case pits conservative advocate Citizens United, famous for its 2008 video decrying then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, against FEC-enforced limits on corporate spending in federal elections. Defenders of the law point out that loosening restrictions on corporate spending would have a profound effect on the distribution of political speech and power in American democracy, favoring wealthy special interests at the expense of ordinary citizens. Their concerns are well-founded in current practice: corporations already exert an extraordinary influence over public policy through lobbying of Congress and the public. It would be an assault on democracy to permit them unlimited spending in the election or defeat of candidates for public office.

But surprisingly absent from today's contentious debate is a recognition that the legitimate aims of both sides -- preventing corruption and preserving freedom of speech -- are not, in fact, at odds under a positively-constructed campaign finance system. Voluntary public funding of federal elections expands free speech for serious, hardworking candidates, irrespective of wealth, without limiting political expression by independent groups.

When campaign finance legislation levels up rather than limits down political speech, the result is more candidates from diverse backgrounds competing for support. Call it the ''more speech'' solution to the problem of free speech in campaign finance reform.

Public funding works because when participating candidates have enough money to make their message known, additional spending by opposing candidates or groups has little determining effect. Political science has long shown that candidates must have sufficient funds to introduce themselves to voters, communicate their values and perspectives, and answer attacks if they are to mount a credible campaign. Beyond this level of funding, however, it's ideas, integrity, and experience that almost always prevail.

The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act in Congress, combining small donations with matching public funds, provides just such a solution. It would leave non-participating candidates, as well as independent groups, free to spend unlimited money to communicate their ideas -- but that's not all.

Speech in a democratic society isn't free when only the rich are heard. Cherishing the First Amendment requires that the opportunity to speak is extended to qualified candidates for public office irrespective of wealth. Under the Fair Elections Now Act, candidates who demonstrate a broad base of public support through small donations receive competitive matching funds to run a serious campaign. In return, they agree to forgo large special-interest contributions.

Experience with public funding in states like Arizona and Maine has shown that most candidates willingly forego the big-money game -- and the countless fundraising hours it demands -- when presented with a Fair Elections alternative to special interest funds. More than three- quarters of candidates in public funding states voluntary participate in the programs.

Worrisome though today's Supreme Court hearing may be for its potential to open up the floodgates to still more corporate spending in federal campaigns, there is an alternative course which steers clear of both free speech and corruption concerns. Voluntary public funding of federal elections has long been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is high time lawmakers in Washington act on Fair Elections legislations now before them in the U.S. House and Senate.

Comments

[castlerider]

Thanks for the great Artcle, Representative Kerry. Sir, where ya been?

Our country has been getting destroyed from the inside for quite some time now by campaign contributions, chief among these being from financial institutions, but basically from corporations in general.
Nothing makes this more clear then what our country has gone through recently at the hands of the Banks and financial institutions and the extreme disregard of our elected leaders, primarily Republicans, but also including most Democrats, to do ANYTHING about it, for fear of upsetting the hands that have given them the money for their campaigns...
And here we are with a country's economy in shambles, with Banks that still won't provide credit, even after the taxpayer has provided their rescue.
The illegality of these actions of corporations contributing to elected rep's campaigns should be looked at with the same vehemence as the Secret Service's determined and urgent quest to combat counterfeit money, and people who would do such a crime.
Would that our country could be so disciplined, clear thinking, and clean, to its very soul. How is it that our leaders can so easily refuse the same vision and determination for real, true and honest liberty as our forefathers had? Greed is such a horrible, infectious poison.

.

[castlerider]

Senator Kerrey, forgive me please, for mispelling your name. My bad.
Again, great article, sir.
.

[Senzasord]

The solution is simple. Institute rules in both houses that state: "Any legislator is barred form considering any legislation that would affect any person, corporation, or organization who has given said legislator cash contributions or other valuable considerations in exhange for access or influence. To do so would be a clear conflict of interest and cannot be tolerated. Said legislator would have to recuse himself from any deliberation, conference, or vote on such legislation."

Enforce these rules!

Any incentive to give these obscene contributions would vanish because there would be no return on the money. Lobbyists would be reduced to providing information only because doing anything else would disqualify their legislators from voting on their bills their way.

There is no first amendment issue because corporations are able to donate whatever they please. Politicians would be foolish to accept the money because that would bar them from participating on certain committees or in the debate over certain laws.

It costs nothing to the taxpayer, so there is no public financing.

Because all legislators would be raising far less money, they could spend much more time doing their jobs.

Win-win all the way around except for the special interests, or those who intend to grow rich as a result of serving in the U.S. Congress.

[research]

You still need to give everyone on the ballot free air time and public independent debates.

Contributions to politicians are Bribes NOT free speech.

[Senzasord]

Absolutely. I agree with you that Contributions are bribes. This is because they create a conflict of interest which should have consequences.

Free air time is something of value and if given to a candidate must necessarily disqualify that candidate from any involvement in braodcast legislation.
This is not to say that the broadcast industry has no obligation to act in the public interest. It has a compelling responsiblilty to do so. Sponsoring public debates is one way that it can meet its obligation and should be not only encouraged but insisted upon.

[CanadianBeef]

Funny how the public option, whether in campaign finance or health care, is never an option. Are you SURE you have free speech and democratic government in America?

[politicky]

Uh, no, lol

[lcdbsez]

This seems like a no-brainer, but everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room . . .

It's the advertising, stupid!

Simply ban political ads -- of all kinds -- on tv and radio. They did it for cigarettes, and it worked.

You don't have to outlaw ALL ads -- political ads can still be on billboards, newspapers, magazines, etc. -- just not on tv and radio, that way, there's no infringement of first amendment rights, blah, blah, blah.

Of course, the media will scream bloody murder b/c they'll lose gazillions of dollars in revenue, but we'll clean up the obscene mess that the political system has been corrupted into, and maybe get rid of fascist creeps like Fuehrer Dick Armey and his phoney front organizations like the oxymoronically named Freedom Works . . . whose sole raison d'etre is to raise money for reichwing candidates and causes.

[NoCorporatePersonhood]

For anyone really interested in this topic of corporate person hood, there is an excellent book written by talk show host Thom Hartman called: "Unequal Protection. The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the theft of Human Rights."

I have never read something better that outlines the fundamental problem we face as citizens.

[poppaculture]

I do not believe a corporation or any organization should be granted the same rights as a citizen of the United States. If the employees or investors of a corporation want to be active, that is fine. But an "entity" (made up of citizens) should not be afforded Free Speech or be treated as a person.

[cheeriogirl]

I feel as if I am in the Twilight Zone.

During Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, didn't members of Congress say repeatedly no Supreme Court Justice should EVER consider legislating a decision?

And yet, they have agreed to "hear" this case?

Do do do do......do do do do .....

[fran-pan]

if we think things are bad now, they will be much worse if the court trys to say corporations are being
deprived of free speech by not being able to give unlimited campaign contributions. then they will buy
the president they want. how can this court turn it 's back on precedent???? it will make a mockery of
our elections.the phoney elections of 2000 and 2004 were terrible enough, look what the last president did to our economy, and watch how the large corporations are trying to stop health care
reform.. this will ruin our country even more..

[PierreLeClerke]

By the way Bob, you must think U.S. naive. Where you not a Ranger? Are you not trained to be alert to movement around you?
Look, the People stir, some are finally awake, others rub their eyes and rise.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way Bob, but please no more attempts at story telling, it is conduct unbecoming of an Officer!

Publicly Funded Campaigns Only

Break the Grip of Greed from the Neck of OUR Nation !!!

[mcmchugh99]

There is real room in this country for a party that doesn't take money from big business interests, and has that as the first plank in its platform.

Why we can't organize a party like that in this age on the Internet is more our fault than that of the people who allegedly represent us in Washington.

[dshwa]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The second worst supreme court ruling ever was the one that equated money with speech, particularly political speech. (Dred Scott remains the worst decision the court ever made, it'll be nearly impossible to top that) That ruling unleashed the restraints on lobbying and campaign donations that plague our democracy to this day. When future hisorians look back at our civilization, that ruling will be what they point to as the start of our fall.

[PierreLeClerke]

You go directly to the head of the class!

[Billy Hell]

I know it's getting boring me posting this all over the place but it's relevant at the moment. Sixty year ago in 1949, this Albert Einstein had to say:

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

[iblogleft]

I am pretty sure he was considered a pretty smart guy :-) As usual, he was right.

[slowtono]

Welp. seems to most Americans that if you believe you can fund 300 million people through hospital life and death funding 8 political candidates for a national presidency should be cake. Screw media money and all special interest. Banks, wall street, pharmaceuticals , hollywood and foreign nations. Just put the folks on TV and let the q&a begin.

[mcmchugh99]

Progressives don't seem very focused on this right now, but the Supreme Court is poised to make one of the worst decisions in its long and sorry history.

I see no way around this but a consitutional amendment that will ban all donations to politicians and political parties and make elections publicly financed.

[research]

Make the TV and Radio Networks honor the public obligation and give free ads and independently run debate time for all the candidates on the ballot. Zero Contributions since they are Bribes, and let the money buy all the books, movies, and ads they want.

[research]

Yes, but ZERO Contributions!

Contribution to politicians are BRIBES.