In the first year of the Obama presidency, we’re already drowning in issues: the stimulus, health care, Afghanistan, and deficits are just the tip of the iceberg. Now I know that issue overload can cause high levels of tune-out and I’ve already tried to throw education onto the fire, but these issues are all interconnected and sometimes you just have to grab the opportunity and throw it out there before another Bush can steal yet another election. So the issue that’s been on my mind through this whole health care debate is campaign financing. I know that McCain-Feingold changed things a little, but with the obvious influence that political money is still having on Congress these days and the various loopholes built into McCain-Feingold, it may be time to revisit full public election financing.
Type in a random politician’s name at opensecrets.org and look at the amount of money from each industry flowing into that candidate’s coffers. And that’s just the hard money! Can we seriously argue that that money isn’t directly buying influence and seriously wounding the integrity of the political process? In the 1975 decision Buckley vs Valeo, the Supreme Court’s opinion has been interpreted into the often talked about “money equals speech” rule that so many hide behind today. The main thrust of this argument is that the First Amendment’s free speech protections also protect campaign contributions. Throw in the corporate personhood ruling from the late 1800’s that allowed corporations the same constitutional rights as human citizens and BAM! you have legalized influence peddling. Of course current law bars corporations from contributing directly to a candidate, but individuals from those corporations can still do the contributing for it. There’s also a cap on individual contributions to limit the amount of influence that can be peddled by any one person, but the big money still gets its voice heard loud and clear. Remember, those limitations are just on the hard money. The limitations on the soft money are much less stringent, and the bottom line is with all the improvements and changes in the laws, politicians are still serving the big money interests after all these years.
The evidence of this loyalty to the big money is especially obvious in the health care debate. Can it possibly be a coincidence that the Blue Dog Democrats who are holding up reform are also big receivers of money from Big Health Insurance? How can they seriously look us in our faces and tell us that their concerns about the public option are for our benefit? Look at the desperation with which Blue Dog Democrats like Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana grasp for reasons to keep private insurance not only around, but competitive:
I know there are some people really pushing this public option, but I think it really undermines the essence of our efforts to create a real market-based private sector model but with strong, I guess, safeguards for consumers.
Despite the fact that Landrieu “guesses” that we might, maybe, possibly need safeguards for consumers, is there any doubt where her true loyalties lie? And can we really ignore the possible influence that the health insurance money she received may have on her refusal to accept anything but a “market based private sector model”? Even in the unlikely absence of a true connection between money and influence, the mere appearance of impropriety present would warrant an investigation for any other sector of society. But these are the lawmakers, and we can’t expect them to regulate themselves. Not without a little public pressure at least.
Our current system forces politicians like Landrieu to beg for help from the big money donors in order to stay competitive. The donors in turn give to everybody just to be safe, so no matter who wins, he or she is in debt to the givers. Not only is it considered rude to ignore the voices behind the money that put you in office, but if you ignore them, you run the risk of losing that money for the next election. We are practically forcing our elected leaders to be beholden to the firmly entrenched powers that be. As long as money equals speech, money also equals volume, and the big money voices will always drown out the small squeaks of poor John and Suzie Q. Taxpayer. Even President Obama, with his revolutionary internet, people-based campaign financing, takes money from all of the usual suspects.
The most maddening aspect of this issue is that we can hardly be angry at politicians for betraying us when the system that we allow to exist forces them to do just that in order to stay in office. We need to get rid of the notion that money equals speech. Voting is speech. Peacefully demonstrating and protesting is speech. Money can buy advertisements for products or even political issues, but it shouldn’t buy elections, directly or indirectly. I’m not suggesting that freedom of speech should be curbed in any way. I am a true believer that the government has no right to curb freedom of speech or expression and I reject all but the most obvious national security reasons as exceptions to this rule. Individuals and groups should be free to advocate any position they want in any forum that they can obtain. But when specific contributions are given to specific candidates from groups or individuals representing groups, that candidate’s ability to operate as an advocate for ALL citizens is necessarily compromised. Even if the strings are invisible, the strings are still attached. And no kind of bribe is protected by the First Amendment. In the end, what good is the ideal of “one man, one vote” when a million dollars in reality can buy a million times the influence of that one trip to the ballot box? The only way to make sure that our representatives in Washington are working only for the people is to take away all other incentives. Full Public Financing equals Free Thinking Lawmakers.
Steve Guggenheimer 