The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission now permits corporations to directly donate to political parties as well as run political advertisements. What is more shocking than the Court's partisan split on the issue however, is the degree to which public anger about the decision has been itself bipartisan. From both ends of the political spectrum, liberal activists and tea party protesters are incensed with a decision they see as allowing even more corporate influence over Washington. Opponents of this decision want to see it overturned by a later Supreme Court; in truth this decision does little to affect the incentive structure already in place, which many argue allows the legislative system in the United States to be captured by private interests.
Lobbyists and public action committees already exploit the need for members of Congress to fret about re-election as soon as they are elected. The level of corporate and private influence in politics already makes a mockery of the 'one person, one vote' contract implicit in a democratic system. Indeed, on key political issues of the day, the financial lobby spends a great deal of time and money trying to persuade Congressmen against the establishment of an independent consumer protection agency. During the healthcare reform bill debate, the insurance industry spent roughly one million dollars a day on lobbyists and contributions to block the public option. From oil companies trying to prevent climate change policy to automakers buying up and destroying public transportation systems to pharmaceutical and food companies lobbying against FDA regulations to no-bid contracts for American companies in Iraq to mortgage lenders protecting their 'loan shark' profit margins--it is evident that while the business of corporations are profit-centered, the purview of governments is the protection and representation of in the people they are elected to serve.
Yet while the notion of corporations as legal persons has been the subject of intense controversy since the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision recognized corporations as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be admitted that the legal ramifications involved in denying corporations- and by the same token unions- rights of personhood are staggering as well as humbling. Instead of adopting a 'reverse or uphold' legal approach on the matter, it would treat the problem more substantially if we challenged the underlying incentive structure in place--limiting financial influence over public servants, raising the costs of social harm, and maintaining an adamant regulatory system.
One idea, which is not new, is to level the playing field by eradicating private financing of elections altogether: maintaining instead a national fund for elections. Before images of a socialist march come to mind, this system is already in practice in the United States, albeit piecemeal. If a candidate privately raises $5,000 in each of at least 20 states and agrees to independent financing limits, the government subsidizes a dollar for dollar "match". This public funding option is not without disadvantages as the 2008 Presidential election saw candidates who opted for public money often falling far behind their privately-financed competitors.
As a nation that sees itself as a beacon of democracy, we must take the issue of campaign finance reform seriously; we must transform elections from the privately-funded popularity contests they currently are into the publicly-financed and open-to-all contests they were envisioned to be in the founding documents of this country. Our current system has allowed dollars to become more powerful than votes and given the most influence to those who have the most money. Prohibiting all private financing would additionally hamstring corporate influence without violating corporate free speech; thus circumnavigating the thorny issue of free speech as it pertains to corporations as well as unions. Campaign finance reform would additionally engender greater transparency as ads run by corporations and unions would be based on the stances political parties or candidates take (for or against oil for example), and not on who has or hasn't accepted undisclosed funds.
It would serve us well to examine an analogous example of a democratic system breaking under the weight of corruption and money in politics. The ills that plague the oldest and the largest democracies in the world are not all that different, and the solution to help remedy them just happens to involve a similar approach. India, the world's largest democracy, is a ray of hope in a region blighted by political instability and military rule. But when I went to cover the largest elections in the world in April of 2009, pride in this democracy was the least of what I found.
Instead of the rosy picture of millions of people voting (418 million actually did), what I consistently encountered as I spoke with NGO leaders, academics, voters, journalists, ministers, and candidates was the increasing political influence and success of common criminals - thugs - in the elections. According to the Association for Democratic Reform, an election watchdog organization, 28% of elected Indian MPs have criminal cases pending against them (more than one in five); while 14% have serious criminal indictments. More alarming is the fact that this number has increased by 31% since the 2004 elections.
It seems that those who have long lived beyond the reach of the law have figured out that if they manage to delay the adjudication of the cases against them in court (not very difficult in India for those who have money and power)--and get elected in the interim--they can enjoy the fruits of parliamentary immunity. Indian election rules do not prevent those charged with criminal cases from standing for electoral offices, only those who have been convicted. Unscrupulous candidates use many nefarious tools at their disposal--from bribery to extortion to intimidation to rioting and even murder and incitement of gang wars--to get the votes they need. For a village thug charged with a crime, the best thing he can do to free himself of accountability is to get elected. Along with the power of patronage that comes with vaunted ministry positions, an air of 'untouchability' comes with electoral success (and not in the Hindu caste sense of the term, but rather Al Capone's).
Recently elected Indian Parliamentarians with criminal offences boastfully refer to themselves as baahubali, which literally translates as "muscle men" or gangsters. Characteristic of these legitimized ruffians is a general desire to amass vast amounts of wealth, use this wealth to attain power, capture more wealth with this newfound power, and so on endlessly.
Historically, the term "thug" referred to a member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India who typically strangled their victims. Corporations are certainly not thugs in the literal sense: they are by definition legal entities created by the State, endowed with rights of legal personhood, shielded from personal liability, and can exist in perpetuity. Armed with these benefits and shareholder funds, corporate executives and managers can however generate vast sums of wealth, which often benefits society at large. Without these privileges, risk-averse individuals would not assume high levels of debt and risk bankruptcy to endeavor to operate such enterprises. Thus, while the existence and life of a corporation is crucial to higher standards of living, their categorical incentive structure, which maximizes profit for shareholders, can also do harm.
It doesn't take much of stretch to see that profit maximization is not always innocuous, and without regulation can endanger human lives, the environment, and even jeopardize competition itself. As Ralph Nader has argued, "from pollution, medical negligence, procurement fraud, product defects, and financial fraud, to antitrust, public corruption, foreign bribery and occupational homicide, corporate crime is widely ignored by politicians - yet acutely felt by all Americans." American corporations, especially those that operate abroad, such as United Fruit, Halliburton, Nike, Enron, Blackwater, Dow Chemical, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Arthur Andersen, Hollinger, and a host of others throw around massive amounts of wealth, bribe, intimidate, tamper with and bend laws to suit their interests, silence whistleblowers, engage in patronage, squeeze out competition, and instill fear in their workers so as to avoid rebellion from within. All of these behaviors can be learned from a baahubali handbook, if ever one was literate enough to write one.
The near collapse of the global financial system at the hands of profit-maximizing investment bankers and sub-prime mortgage brokers in 2008 illustrates this correlation well. A lack of accountability, an absence of a properly functional regulatory framework, extremely close ties (some would say a revolving door) between Wall Street and Washington, conflicts of interest (such as the relationship between Goldman Sachs and Greece), and the expectations of huge personal profits brought peril to the global economic system. Many concerned with avoiding another financial crisis argue that these root causes have not been addressed; Wall Street continues to operate with moral hazard and Congress continues to have difficulty policing those on whom it relies to get re-elected to office.
One thing remains sad and true. Whether you are looking at the American Congress or the Indian Lok Sahba, reform falls into the hands of the very people who have incentives to stunt it. In other words, those who stand to gain from a corrupting system are the very ones who hold all the power to change it. Will we see campaign finance reform in our lifetime? The answer unfortunately lies with those who have the money: thuggish Parliamentarians in India and corporate entities in the United States. Can we trust them to regulate themselves as we naively did with respect to Wall Street?
We have for far too long allowed the incentive structure in the American political system to tilt toward private money. It doesn't take a genius to understand that eventually those with the most money will carry the greatest influence, and those who depend on those large caches of cash will be beholden to the dictates of their funders. It reminds one of that proverbial parental slogan: 'as long as you live under my roof, you will do as I say.' Just as children must move out and make their own money to gain their independence, so too should Members of Congress move out of the 'care' of their financial supporters. In order to free our lawmakers from the need to accumulate vast resources and then repay those supporters in kind, we must institute a system that publicly funds the campaigns of those who are eligible. The goal here is to level the playing field, dissuade lawmakers from using their time in office to obtain fresh funds, and use that time instead to make and vote on laws - their actual jobs.
It was never the intention of the Founding Fathers that American lawmakers would be beholden to financiers, and it seems doubtful that they would allow corporations to take center stage in our political system. The private sector is adept at many things; but financing political outcomes shouldn't be one of them. Glenn Greenwald, in pointing out how little healthcare reform hurts private interests or insurance companies, emphasizes, "Corporate control of the Government is one of the most serious problems, if not the single most serious problem, the nation faces. Every future bill -- from "financial reform" to energy bills to national security and surveillance legislation -- is dominated by that central fact." Yet the idea that financial and political power should rarely mingle is still considered radical today.
In his dissent to Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens asked why corporations, which are not members of society and cannot vote or run for office, should be allowed to crowd out those who do. What is the point of voting at all if members of Congress are more indebted to their financial base than to their electoral base? Corporations alone seem to have the amount of cash required to fund campaigns, and they often fund both parties in order to ensure that their views are represented in debate on any legislation that would affect them. In India, thugs behave in the same fashion. They meet in secret with other Parliamentarians, give and trade favors, and do this with the extra cash and muscle they acquire from their positions. It is a negative feedback loop built around rational responses to incentives.
America is a capitalist democracy, and if we endear ourselves to the notion of proper incentive structures as well as free and fair elections, we should demand both! What actually and ironically seems the most self-evident about corporate influence in politics is that it has the power to corrupt absolutely.
I am not. When corporations do not have unlimited freedom to engage in politics, labor unions will no longer have the great *need* to do so which they currently have *only* because corporations are getting the rules re-written to the disadvantage of labor. Then labor unions could focus more on litigating on behalf of aggrieved workers, and don't forget, they could still appeal directly to the public for support on issues if we only prohibit "speech" in the form of lobbying Congress.
Consider the "best" direct appeal to the public that any corporation could buy. Now, consider a labor union appealing to voters to support the opposite position, say with pamphlets handed out on street corners vs. corporate prime-time teevee ads many thousands of times as much. I think you would agree, the labor union has the advantage in credibility. It is only by direct lobbying of Congress, and only because of the funds for their next election which are always known to be at stake without even the need of a wink and a nod, which currently gives corporations the advantage at legislating.
So public financing of elections, definitely. But I would not be so worried about limiting the free speech of non-humans, chartered by the states for convenient profit-seeking. I think it is less dire to non-profit advocacy organizations than you fear.
Were you opposed to the same rights being given to Unions as Corporations in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? You might have noticed that on several occasions, labor unions have used their enormous coffers to prevent democratic initiatives from being achieved on ballot initiatives. One such initiative, California Prop 75 in 2005, prevented workers of the unions from authorizing how their dues might be spent in political campaigns. This would have placed the power in the hands of the workers versus the hands of the Unions. Normally, a worker has to submit a request each year to prevent 30% of their dues from going to political contributions, otherwise this money automatically goes to the Union coffers for political campaigns-of which have solely supported Democratic candidates. This clearly discriminates against those union members who are also Independents and Republicans. In 2005, labor unions used their own workers money (outspent their opponents by 45 million) to prevent them from choosing how their dues (contributions) would be used in political campaigns. As labor laws clearly stipulate, labor unions are responsible for representing all workers and not just those who happen to have the same political ideology. The move by the Union on Prop 75 was clearly an attempt at organizational self-preservation and differed little from the actions of the corporations which they were chartered to protect workers from.
While I remain uncomfortable with the Citizens decision, I do believe that we have to, at least, legally treat corporations and unions the same, especially when it comes to campaign finance reform and specifically for the reasons you have listed. I may have to accept and live with the discomfort of giving so much influence to so few, but I do think limiting free speech is the wrong approach to take. Instead of turning off the proverbial spigot of private and unionized campaign contributions, we should fill candidates’ sinks to a brim (a brim we voters and taxpayers decide upon). That was the point of my article. By publically funding campaigns equally, candidates won't need to accept private money (nor should they be able to take extra funds). It solves the problem without taking rights away from corporate or unionized entities. Public service should not be exclusive to those who have vast sums of money (Meg Whitman in California) or those who can obtain vast resources (http://www.slate.com/id/2249952/pagenum/all/#p2). I hope I have answered your question. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Public financing would obviously violate the 1st Amendment protection to free association. Free association presupposes 2 things: 1) we can gather with whomever we wish, and 2) we can not gather with those we do not wish to be with. Public financing removes the 2nd part, thereby violating both parts.
Second, as a political entity, public financing would favor those with political connections, shutting out those without them. The grassroots candidate would all but be non-existant.
Third, no candidate has a right to run. They have the freedom to run. Nothing stands in their way. If they wish to compete for the job, they have the responsibility to garner their own support. Get out there and sell their message, gaining supporters. These supporters will donate to that candidate. This funding will further the campaign.
As Americans, we have the right to support those candidates we agree with, and to not fund those we do not. Public financing removes this right. I ask you: if George Bush was able to run again, would you financially support his campaign?
Your entire argument is based on some very flawed assumptions and does not address in any fashion the influence held by those who have money. The picture you paint of the ideal grassroots campaign is all well and good but reality rebukes it. As is those who have more money can squash those with less. Public financing would level the field making the issue at hand ideas, not cash.
I think that this has applicability today. I certainly recommend this book for reading (it is available in repring.) The author's views helped fuel the fight against corporate greed in Teddy Roosevelt's administration. We need to reopen that battle!
They are pretty much what you would think from the naming.
Which would you think we are in now?
Some folks have been planning for the recent court ruling for quite a while.
It was not accident nor happenstance that Roberts entered the court and one of the first cases brought up was the corporate personhood case.
For all practical p[urposes, our democracy of the people has been taken away from us.
I do not believe we will get it back.
1. Most of the expenditures in elections are spent to purchase airtime from TV stations and radio stations. Those airwaves were GIVEN (not sold to) the stations by the federal government. Perhaps it is time we charged rent on the airwaves by requiring that all candidates for office be given some amount of free time on radio and TV stations to promote thier candidacy and views. Some restrictions would be needed (imagine Cal Worthington running for office while talking about "if you vote for me, I'll give you a great deal on a used car"), perhaps some limit on negative ads (requiring that no ad mention the opposing candidate?), etc. Still, since the stations get free airwaves, why can't we "charge rent," in the form of political information?
2. The amount of money spent in 2008 was dwarfed by every single department of the US government. A few F-22's would have paid all campaigning expenses from Obama and McCain down to the local dogcatcher. We should just provide enough public financing to make corporate speech less valuable? If we give every candidate an amount of money equal to the average spent by the candidates in the last cycle, the candidate with deep pockets will have far less of an edge...
"Those airwaves were GIVEN (not sold to) the stations by the federal government."
They are licensed for use to include news serving the public interest, not given. The FCC has gotten lax in enforcement, but it still has some power.
Unless the elected official is independently wealthy going into office there is no way he keeps his/her seat without cultivating financial patrons who expect something in return. If Americans want to truly be represented by the individuals they elect to office they need to underwrite the cost of campaigning so any quid pro quo between an office holder and patron can be rightfully considered corruption without the cover of "Campaign Contribution" being available to them.
"All certified public elections from President to Dog Catcher will include: "None of the above" on the ballot. In the event this choice receives the largest percentage or number of votes, the incumbent will remain in office until a complete new set of nominees are selected"
Allow every voter to vote for all candidates they support. This frees folks to vote for the "unelectable," libertairian/green/tea party/etc. candidate knowing that they can also vote for the democrat or republican. Given a few cycles and a few scandals, the "unelectable," might not be so unelectable...
I would support NOTA if it meant the office became vacant until someone won 51%... Might force a lot of folks to seek the moderate middle instead of the party fringe.
I'm going to read that one. -AJB