Bad Court Ruling Opened Floodgates
- Print print this page
- Discuss 19 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
For much of the last century, legislators both state and federal have wrestled with campaign reform.
Born of repeated political corruption scandals, many laws were passed to ensure the fairness of elections and to prevent moneyed interests from undue influence over the people's representatives.
In 1907, Congress prohibited corporations from using money from their treasuries to directly campaign.
Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out that law (and much more). Based on a nonbinding headnote (added by a court reporter to the decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company), the court ruled that corporations are people and enjoy the free speech rights of actual humans.
The result has been a dramatic increase in money flowing into political campaigns at all levels.
Out of this decision has come the super PAC, a political action committee on steroids. This new entity is allowed to collect and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions and individuals as long as they don't coordinate with candidates. While contributors are supposed to be identified eventually, the rules have some interesting loopholes that may keep those names secret until after an election and in some cases forever.
Super PACs are a true game-changer, as the recent Iowa caucuses showed. The candidates themselves were able to make mostly positive, friendly TV ads, while super PACs funded ugly, negative, often distorted messages to savage their opponents.
When challenged to explain the negative advertising, candidates were able to say that they weren't responsible for what those independent groups did. And everyone said it with a straight face.
One would be extremely naive to think that there's no link between the candidate and the super PAC supporting him. Those millions of dollars are not being spent at random, and the idea that the candidates' hands are clean is a convenient fiction.
While Newt Gingrich is reviled by those on this side of the aisle as the man who destroyed Congress' ability to legislate in the public interest, he is no fool when it comes to campaign tactics. Last week, Gingrich said of Mitt Romney's position that he's not responsible for what PACs do said, "This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC -it's baloney. He's not telling the American people the truth."
You can safely bet that with the stakes so high and the money so readily available, office-seekers will find ways to communicate their needs to the PACs.
Iowa was the opening salvo of presidential and congressional campaigns that promise to be uglier and more divisive than any in the nation's history. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent to support (or attack) candidates without the financial disclosures that we've come to expect. Scurrilous charges and outright lies that no candidate could get away with will become common. It's difficult to see the benefit to the country from this new system.
Those of an age remember when political campaigns involved a lot of volunteers going door to door, and neighborhood lawn signs were the main advertising. Those days are long past. Television became the primary means of reaching voters, and that profoundly changed campaigning.
TV advertising requires a lot of money, even with the huge discounts Congress has forced on the media. (It is worthwhile to note that neither party has shown interest in eliminating those job-killing, bargain-basement rates.) With the need for mountains of cash came the need for endless fundraising.
Your representatives in Congress spend most of their working hours asking contributors for money. From the day they take office, they know that their re-election depends on being able to fund an expensive campaign. The need for money has largely replaced public service in the political mind. If representative government is to succeed, we must change that.
There are efforts under way in Congress to undo the damage caused by Citizens United. Whether by legislation or constitutional amendment, some in Congress are working to restore the limits on corporate influence to return elections to the people. They deserve our support.
At the moment, the Occupy movement is considering ways to reform our election system. The ideas being discussed range from familiar calls for open primaries and easier access for candidates regardless of party affiliation to more daring and innovative approaches, such as removing electoral reform from government control and instant runoff voting. The latter would likely benefit third-party candidates.
Important too is guaranteeing our citizens' right to vote. Republican efforts at voter suppression using such tactics as mandatory photo ID at the polls, reducing the number of polling places and shortening early voting periods serve to disenfranchise minorities, the elderly and college students. Voter discouragement is bad policy.
In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama called out the Supreme Court for its reckless decision, saying that it would "open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign companies - to spend without limit in our elections." Justice Alito was seen mouthing the words, "Not true."
It should have been, "We're sorry."
Jim Heim is chairman of the Moore County Democratic Party. Contact him at democrat@heim.us.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
jpb, The purpose of the column is to give the Democrats' side. Please contact Mr. Levy for the Republican take on these issues.
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
wdd, I'm familiar with Ms Geller's work and have been unimpressed with her wildly hysterical seriously exaggerated stories. I don't believe a word in them.
Be that as it may, consider this: Obama's top 2008 contributions were associated with Univ of California ($1.6 million), Goldman Sachs ($1 million), Harvard Univ ($878,000), Microsoft ($852,000). And you think the "Palestinian's" $35,000 is a big deal, gonna shape our foreign policy? Really???
madstork 1 year, 4 months ago
Heim – “Republican efforts at voter suppression using such tactics as mandatory photo ID at the polls, reducing the number of polling places and shortening early voting periods serve to disenfranchise minorities, the elderly and college students.” How being able to identify yourself in this society is an act of disenfranchisement, is still not clear.
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
madstork, so far your side hasn't come up with a reason to require photo ID. Your side can't come up with examples of voter impersonation, the only thing photo ID at the polls can prevent. States where Republicans have passed these laws are preventing a lot of people, especially the elderly, from voting. And the delays caused by adding ID examination to the voting process results in long lines and voter frustration.
The only reason for these laws is voter suppression. Full stop.
skylinefirepest 1 year, 4 months ago
Jim Heim...You guys are tiring! The right to vote is one of the premier rights of living in this country. It is so important that we should not ignore any effort to make sure that only those who are legally able to vote can do so! You guys have soiled the process and it should be made right. To holler about "dis-enfranchisement of the poor, or the elderly, or those of color" is absolute BULLHOCKEY and you know it!! You say that we can't show any problems but you ignore the references that have been posted proving you wrong! You've got to have photo id to do any of a great number of things and voting should be among them! I personally don't want some illegal alien discounting my vote!
madstork 1 year, 4 months ago
Heim, Thanks for the circular argument to a dead end. I asked an open ended question to extract some insight from you and your response is “hard stop”. I still don’t see any data to support your position that the ID law is disenfranchising anyone. My gosh…the elderly don’t have ID? Tell that to my 90 year old parents who fought in WWII. I’m sure they had one before they went to war.
JER 1 year, 4 months ago
The amount of money spent on all candidates running for elective office increases by leaps and bounds with each new election cycle. The dollar amounts are obscene, given the financial situation the country is in. The conservative right has pushed for a voter ID requirement for all voters to insure that election results are fair and honest. I say we have a bill drafted to pass legislation to make voter ID the law of the land. That bill would also include the provision that every dollar contributed to a candidates campaign be identified as to the person or entity who donated it. And that every political ad run on any medium have the full disclosure of the name and address of the person or entity that ran it. In this way, we'll protect the voting process from all the possible forms of manipulation.
Courseaire 1 year, 4 months ago
JER - I'll give you a BIG Amen to that, even if the poor, elderly & minorities are disenfranchised. "Disenfranchised" - This has to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard.
Here might be a conversation at the next Presidential Election Polling place:
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
Tell 84 year old Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw Wisconsin (who's paralyzed on one side and was born at home in 1927 and has no state-issued birth certificate) that she has to pay $200 to get a photo ID or she can't vote anymore.
Maybe you can tell 96 year old Dorothy Cooper of Chattanooga TN that because she can't find her marriage certificate, she has to quit voting.
Or maybe you can explain to 86 year old Darwin Spinks (a WWII vet) that he has to pay $8 to get an ID for the privilege of amusing Republicans.
There you have three real people you can look up on the web who are being inconvenienced for no better reason than to suppress their vote. Now give me three examples of false votes cast that photo ID at the polling place would have prevented.
Courseaire 1 year, 4 months ago
Get me phone numbers and/or addresses and I'd be more than happy to or you could also provide fee waivers for those that can't afford them or let them apply their food stamps toward their fee. Didn't I see old Darwin speeding down Main Street to get his Cigs & booz before the store closed last week?
JER 1 year, 4 months ago
JimHeim: If a voter photo ID requirement would become the law of the land it must come with the provision that everyone of voting age has an opportunity to obtain one at no charge to them. If it requires the photographer to go to the home of someone who is immobilized to take the photo, so be it. If those who think a voter photo ID is critical to the honesty of elections, then we can conclude that cost is not a condition for providing it. Would you agree?
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
If photo ID passes here in NC I will demand that the state provide me with a free ID. It doesn't matter that I have a driver's license.I paid cash for that. I refuse to pay for the right to vote.
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
Courseaire, Cigs and booze are not a constitutional right; voting is.
And Darwin lives in a state where drivers 60 and over don't have photos on their licenses. Didn't you know that?
Maybe you should learn the facts before posting. It would save embarrassment.
Courseaire 1 year, 4 months ago
I refuse to pay for the right to vote. - That's why we fought in all these wars, so I don't have to pay for the right to vote!!! Bah Humbug & Haahrrumpf! You never stated what state Darwin lived in, but I am sooooo embarrassed, Still doesn't change my opinion. Have you ever seen the movie "Grummpy Old Men"?
madstork 1 year, 4 months ago
Heim, NC constitution states, if you quailfy, you "shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State". Not a right. Entilited to vote as long as you quailify under Article VI, section 2.
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
madstork, Try Section 11 : As political rights and privileges are not dependent upon or modified by property, no property qualification shall affect the right to vote or hold office.
Note the phrase "right to vote." It's right there.
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
courseaire, The NC constitution requires free elections. Works for me.
The fact is that North Carolina (along with pretty much every Southern state), has a history of using poll taxes to discourage minority voters. That's why the federal government outlawed the practice. No state can require its citizens to spend money for the right to vote.
That's why we fought all of those wars. That and oil.
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
I take it from these nitpicky little posts that you're having trouble finding that huge wave of voter fraud we're supposed to spend all this money to prevent. How's it going?
JER 1 year, 4 months ago
JimHeim: I totally agree that if a voter photo ID law were passed, EVERYONE should receive a free voter photo ID card. And everyone has to provide exactly the same information and go through the same process to get it. If voter fraud is to be eliminated, we cannot "grandfather in" existing forms of ID.
skylinefirepest 1 year, 4 months ago
Hey Jim...I'll ask you the same thing that I've asked every other person that makes that stupid comment...if we fought for oil, where the hell is it????
JimHeim 1 year, 4 months ago
We are able to buy all we need. In fact we have so much available that we're a net exporter of refined fuel.