Here's one piece of news that won't take anyone by surprise: Congress is failing to solve the difficult challenges facing our country. Healthcare costs are choking the federal budget. Our reliance on foreign oil is perilous to our national security. We continue to spend precious resources on military weapons the Pentagon doesn't want. And our schools are failing to offer the quality education that every American child deserves.
The real story, of course, is why?
There are no easy answers in politics. But I would submit that one fundamental reason for Washington's continued failure to respond to the looming challenges we face is that our elected leaders are hamstrung by the special interests who fund their campaigns. Our leaders have become paralyzed by the flood of money showered on them by a small minority of self-interested contributors who have the means and incentive to control how Congress does business.
In 2010, less than one half of one percent of Americans were responsible for 80 percent of all contributions made to candidates for federal office. A closer look at the numbers is even more sobering. Consider that the healthcare industry contributed $825 million to candidates for federal office from 1990-2008. Or that campaign contributions from Wall Street increased five-fold from $60 million in 1990 to $311 million in 2008. Or that the energy industry has spent $500 million in campaign contributions since 1990.
Consider the battle to rein in the federal deficit. No wonder Congress is unwilling to enact tax increases for the wealthy. No wonder military spending cuts don't get discussed. No wonder the insurance companies continue to shape the healthcare debate. That's where the money comes from that fuels the campaigns for federal office.
It's called pay-to-play, and it's the oldest game in the book.
But blaming Members of Congress is too easy. Consider the pressures they face. In 2010, it cost incumbents more than $9 million on average to run a successful Senate campaign and almost $1.6 million to win the average House seat. Unless they are independently wealthy, Members of Congress really don't have a choice but to solicit and accept campaign contributions from anyone willing to fund their campaigns -- even if those very donors have business before them.
And, no matter how you look at it, raising that much money is a huge distraction from doing the job they came to Washington to do. Members of Congress report spending as much as a third of their time raising money for their reelection. This is time that they should be devoting to representing their constituents and running our country.
It's a case of good people caught in a very broken system. Until Congress changes the way we fund Congressional elections, our government will continue to operate under the influence of special interests.
It's time candidates for Congress got to choose between big money from special interests and citizen-funded elections. That choice is the Fair Elections Now Act, newly-introduced legislation that would match small donations from constituents with public funds, ensuring that any candidate who foregoes large donations from special interests has enough money to run a competitive campaign. I predict that candidates will embrace this choice when it is law. And survey after survey shows that voters will embrace candidates who opt for small donor-driven public funding when they see the emphasis shift from the deep pockets of special interests to the small contributions from a candidate's own constituents.
Past attempts at campaign finance reform have fallen short because they have relied on placing limits and restrictions on campaign donations. This strategy has been unsuccessful because, time after time, the restrictions that are put in place are simply avoided by adept legal maneuvering. Put a barrier on one type of contribution, and the money inevitably finds a new way into campaign coffers. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly declared that restrictions on campaign contributions are a violation of our First Amendment.
The Fair Elections Now Act is different. It won't restrict free speech. In fact it encourages more speech by giving worthy candidates a greater opportunity to be heard. And since accepting public funds is a voluntary option, anyone running for office will still be able to run the "old-fashioned way," accepting contributions from anywhere and anyone.
Fair Elections will not place restrictions on those who opt to fund their campaign the traditional way because it doesn't have to. If a publicly funded candidate can earn enough in matching funds to run a competitive race, it doesn't matter if any of her opponents spend significantly more. A careful study of election history shows that you can lose a race by not having enough money, but you can't win a race solely by spending your way into office. In other words, the determining factor isn't whether candidates spend the most money but whether they have enough money to get their message out to the voters.
Public Funding is not some experimental political science theory. Public funding laws have proven themselves in seven states, as well as in New York City and many other municipalities, and they are standard practice in virtually every other democracy on earth.
It's time Americans stood up and demanded a Congress that works for the people, not special interests, through campaign finance reform.
Former Senator Bob Kerrey is co-chair of the bipartisan group Americans for Campaign Reform, along with former Senators Bill Bradley, Warren Rudman, and Alan Simpson.
That says it all. Unfortunately those special interests will fight reform tooth and nail.
Nor can seats in Congress be bought. Ultimately, it is up to voters to decide who they want in office. All money can do is allow candidates to offer their message to the voters, and let them decide. As for why the American public votes for the candidates they do, well, that's what happens in a free society, people are able to vote based on issues, considerations, interests, and traits of their own choosing, not yours.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
What alternative reality are you talking about? Politicians state positions based on polls, and change positions based on money. And there is plenty of research to back that up. Just because the politician with the most money doesn't always win, that doesn't mean that we have a working system.
Americans have to wake up to who's really running this country. When will high bills and lower income cause people to protest?
U.S. citizens must be more proactive and creative. How long has it been that effective citizen strategy has been successful when, "Americans stood up and demanded a Congress that works for the people", as the Senator recommends now. This strategy will not work. They scoff at our demands!
We still have a vote. We must learn how to use it effectively without the help of our current Congress. The ball is in our court, not that of our current representatives, most of whom are anything but that.
No one can address the systemic rot at the core of our politics with the way we now fund our elections. Reforming the campaign finance system is the only issue that matters because nothing is going to change for the better until we get it fixed.
I love your suggestion for a quick fix. Fanned.
Gee, there's nothing that could go wrong with that...
For me, I'll rely on voters to decide who is lying, bending the truth, exaggerating, omitting important facts, and other variations. Seems a lot more consistent with the First Amendment.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
It's not hard to get at the truth. The recent commission on debt reduction, a bi-partisan group, were able to admit that only by increasing revenue, decreasing payments for entitlements, paying down the debt, etc. could we get the deficit under control. Retired government workers show remarkable degree of reasonable independence that most people don't laugh at.
Take the birthers. Please.
Fair us and balance us!
That's government fact changing, not fact checking, and it's what we need to have independent agencies, outside political patronage or corporate control to protect us from.
But if you're getting paid to call the present system of paid guns lying 24-7 "competitive politics," you're sure going to be wary of any change.
Why do we allow corporations, LLCs, partnerships, labor unions, trade associations, special interest groups, etc to contribute directly or indirectly to political campaigns?
Why do we allow these same entities to influence elections through political advertising and other forms of political speech?
Only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns and those contributions need to be capped at a reasonable level. Let's say $1,000 per year per candidate with a total cap of $10,000 per year for all candidates per person.
We will never have honest politicians that put the American people first until this happens.
the only knowledge that is required is how to effectively beg money to be paid for "services rendered".
i watch lots of cspan. it amazes me that all of them stand at the podium, pretend to be high and mighty when in reality they are smooth talking prostitutes. i always wonder who's bread is being buttered by this speech? i occurs to me that it's not what is being said but what is being left out that is going to affect my life the most.
i watched about four hours of the budget debate last friday, only heard that parks and museums would be closed. soldiers would not get paid and how unpatriotic that would be but not a word about the specific cuts. it is never what they are saying that should concern the listener but what is in the works that they are not telling you about.
mistrust of our government is not a sickness. it is a terminal disease whose symtoms are getting more and more acute.
the medicine is campaign reform.