|
tell poll takers that they
distrust politicians and politics and are disillusioned about the
role of money in politics. Consider what most Americans say
in recent surveys: that high campaign costs discourage good people
from running for political office; that it's time for Washington
politicians to retire and make room for new people; that politicians
say anything to get elected; that elections are "for sale;"
and that, ultimately, government operates "for a few big
interests" instead of for "the benefit of all people."
In 1996, a majority of Americans did not vote, and one explanation
-- among many -- was that many people didn't bother to participate
in a system they consider unresponsive and exclusionary. To many,
it's an entrenched political system where, for example, 98.3 percent
of incumbent members of the U.S. House of Representatives were
reelected in 1998. The curious thing is that most Americans told
poll takers that they supported their own representative that year,
but disapproved of the way Congress as a whole was doing its job.
The significant level of public alienation from politics calls
into question the very legitimacy of our democratic form of
government. What's wrong? What can be done? This citizens' guide
focuses on the role of money in public life. To help citizens sort
through the issue, this guide, like other books in the NIF series,
breaks the issue down to some fundamental American concerns. This
unbundling process separates major strands of American thinking on
the issue into several distinct public policy perspectives, or
choices. Each choice offers a different diagnosis of what's wrong,
based on views and priorities voiced by many Americans in studies
and surveys. Each choice also provides a direction for public action
or a way to approach the problem. These approaches include ideas
and proposals that are drawn from across the political spectrum.
Because every policy choice has its costs, tradeoffs, and weaknesses,
this issue book also asks citizens to confront the downside of
their preferred choice and make sure they would be willing to accept
it. For purposes of clarity and to spur public deliberation, the
choices are presented as distinct alternatives, with each one
grounded on a different public agenda. For information about public
deliberation and the National Issues Forums, visit the
NIF Web site.
Money Troubles From the Start
Democracy's most persistent dilemma may be that politicians need
lots of money to publicize their candidacy, engage citizens, and
get voters to the polls -- all without appearing to buy votes or
show favor to financial supporters.
Take an early example: In 1757, George Washington first
"stood" for a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses
(to "run," or promote one's candidacy, was considered
unethical in some states and illegal in others until the 19th
century). His expenditures for getting out the vote included 2
gallons of cider royal, 28 gallons of rum, 34 gallons of wine, 46
gallons of beer, and 50 gallons of rum punch. While luring voters
to the polls with food and drink was commonplace at the time,
Washington's critics accused him of buying votes. "Even in
those days, this was considered a large campaign expenditure,
because there were only 391 voters in his district," writes
historian George Thayer. Twenty years later, James Madison personally
tried to reform the system by not distributing liquor to voters --
and was defeated for reelection to the Virginia legislature. In
1811, Maryland became the first state to ban the sale of alcohol
on election day in a feeble attempt to curb its use for political
purposes.
Recent efforts to change the system have collided with the U.S.
Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution. Following the Watergate
scandal, which included allegations of bribery and other campaign
finance abuses, Congress created a campaign finance system in 1974.
It limited donations to candidates as well as candidates' overall
campaign spending. The Supreme Court's review of the law produced
a split decision: it ruled that limits on what individuals can
contribute were a constitutional way to deter corruption and the
appearance of corruption; but it struck down limits on what candidates
can spend, ruling that such limits would violate their right to
free speech. The only exception, the court added, was that candidates
could accept voluntary limits on their campaign spending in exchange
for public funds -- as is the case in presidential elections and in
some states. Current laws are also complicated in that they limit
a person's gifts to a candidate but not to a political party.
Money, Power, Equity
Money has always been a political problem, but today there a
widespread perception that the political thirst for cash is out of
control. In April 2000, a party held by the Republican National
Party set a record by raising $21.3 million, only to be outdone
the next month by a Democratic National Committee event that raised
$26.5 million. Some of the guests had written checks for $500,000,
taking advantage of the lack of regulatory limits on contributions
to political parties, as distinct from individual candidates.
Money also played a role in foreshortening the 2000 presidential
primaries, as many candidates could not raise enough money to run
competitive campaigns and dropped out -- narrowing the field down
to just two, George W. Bush and Al Gore, well before many states
had a chance to hold their primary elections. A number of Americans
complained about being shut out of the process of selecting candidates
for the nation's top job.
The relationship between money and power inevitably raises
questions about two clashing democratic principles, the freedom to
support political causes and the right to political equality. As
Americans, we take it for granted that we can give money or other
assistance to any cause or candidate that advocates our views and
interests. But Americans also believe in the democratic principle
of political equality among all citizens -- a belief that the entire
political system, including everything from running elections to
apportioning budgets, must be done in the spirit of "one
person, one vote."
These principles rub against each other, often creating sparks.
For example, what happens when one citizen gives money -- or
volunteers time -- to a political campaign and another citizen
doesn't? Does the campaign donor or volunteer derive unfair political
advantage, perhaps by having more political access or influence
than the citizen who didn't donate or volunteer?
Concern about political equity has increased along with campaign
costs and politicians reliance on wealthy donors. Less than 10
percent of Americans contribute time or money to political campaigns.
Essentially, this has been the pattern throughout American history,
but the amount of money involved today has set off alarms.
Framework for Deliberation
To promote public deliberation about the role of money in our
democracy, this issue book presents three approaches, or choices
in the matter. Rather than conforming to the ideas of any one
advocate, each choice is constructed of many congruent public policy
proposals. Each choice also represents a distinct set of American
priorities and views. Some elements of the choices may be readily
mixed, but not others, as each choice has different priorities and
a different way of seeing the root of the problem.
Choice One supporters say democracy cannot thrive unless
political candidates have enough money to inform citizens about
their competing ideas and qualifications. The problem is that more
than 90 percent of political contributions comes from wealthy
contributors and special interests, which often have matters pending
before government. As a result, many elections are elitist fund-raising
competitions, and the democratic principle of "one person,
one vote" is corrupted into "one donor, much influence."
In this view, the nation must regain control of elections by choosing
from a menu of reform options that includes publicly funded campaigns
and regulations. The nation is moving in this direction, but it's
been a very half-hearted effort lacking a real commitment to clean
up politics. It's time to get serious about making real reforms.
Choice Two supporters say campaign finance reforms will
only disappoint and disillusion citizens because they focus narrowly
on political campaign contributions, which are dwarfed by
the billions annually spent on lobbying politicians out of the
public view. Reforms that curb special interests' spending on
political campaigns merely redirect the flow of money in politics,
sending it deeper underground. In this view, the way to reduce
money's corrupting influence is to exert much more control over
the way politicians and bureaucrats at every level of government
interact with special interest lobbies. In addition to new restrictions
on lobbying, there also needs to be more restrictions on politicians.
Ballot measures, which permit voters in some states to enact or
repeal laws when politicians ignore the public will, should be
permitted in all states and at the federal level. Laws should also
make it easier for voters to recall elected officials who aren't
serving the public interest.
Choice Three supporters say our representative system of
democracy has withstood the test of time and, until the 1970s,
worked well without much regulation of campaign finance. Then the
Watergate scandal precipitated a rush to regulate political
contributions, restricting everyone's freedom. But freedom resists
regulation, and the reform effort backfired, systematically distorting
our democratic system and causing more damage than the occasional
bribery scandal ever did. Elections are now tipped towards incumbents,
celebrities, and the rich. Most challengers can not raise enough
money to compete. Political gridlock is epidemic. To revive democracy,
we need more money for competitive campaigns and less
regulation to ease fundraising and spur discussion of viewpoints
in our diverse society. A new requirement for fuller and faster
disclosure of all political donations is, in this view, the best
way to deter corruption and head off conflicts of interest.
For Further Reading / Money & Politics: Who Owns
Democracy?
Anthony Gierzynski, Money Rules: Financing Elections in
America (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000). Michael J.
Malbin, Thomas L. Gais, The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign
Finance Lessons from the American States (Albany, NY: The
Rockefeller Institute Press, 1998).
www.destinationdemocracy.org
is the Web site for Destination Democracy, a non-profit organization
funded by the Benton Foundation. The site provides different
perspectives on the issue of money in politics.
Managing Money, Politics, and Power Over Three Centuries:
1757: In his first race for the Virginia House of Burgesses,
George Washington serves an average of a quart and a half of
alcoholic beverages to each voter -- and draws criticism for enlarging
the then customary polling place buffet to win the election.
1828: Andrew Jackson elected 7th President, pioneering
the use of public fundraising appeals.
1897: Nebraska, Missouri, Tennessee, and Florida prohibit
political contributions from corporations.
1898: South Dakota lets citizens enact or repeal laws in the
voting booth. By 1992, 26 other states adopt some form of the ballot
initiative and referendum process to empower voters.
1907: Congress prohibits corporate contributions to federal
candidates.
1920: Women gain the right to vote with the enactment of the
19th Amendment, which started as a citizens' ballot
initiative.
1921: Teapot Dome scandal erupts after oil companies bribe a
member of President Warren Harding's cabinet to obtain oil drilling
rights on federal land.
1925: Congress imposes spending limits on candidates' campaign
committees, but no limit on the number of committees, rendering
the law useless.
1952: Rosser Reeves, creator of M&M's ad campaign ("Melts
in your mouth, not in your hand") produces the nation's first
political 30-second TV spots, for presidential candidate Dwight D.
Eisenhower.
1960: The first televised debate, between presidential candidates
John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. With TV sets in almost every
home now, candidates have an easier time getting their message out,
but the price of TV ads causes campaign costs to soar.
1971: Congress, in response to rising campaign costs, sets
spending limits and disclosure rules for federal campaigns.
1974: Campaign finance abuses surrounding the Watergate scandal
prompt Congress to limit contributions to candidates to $1,000 from
individuals and to $5,000 from political action committees. The
law also bans "soft money," the unlimited contributions
to political parties. It further requires disclosure of donations and
expenditures, and creates a public financing system of matching
funds for presidential races. Other aspects of the law are challenged
in court.
1976: U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution: 1) permits
limits on contributions to candidates in order to curb corruption
and the appearance of corruption; 2) does not permit curbs on
candidates' campaign expenditures, which are deemed a higher level
of protected speech.
1978: Minnesota enacts partial public funding for state elections.
By 1993, some form of partial public funding is available in 23
states.
1979: Congress repeals ban on unlimited contributions to political
parties, after the parties had trouble raising funds for increasing
voters' awareness of issues during the 1976 elections.
1996: Maine provides nearly full public financing for state
election campaigns. Subsequently, Massachusetts, Vermont, and
Arizona pass similar laws.
1996: Voter turnout falls below 50% for the first time in a
presidential election since 1924.
1997: U.S. Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold sponsor
legislation to reinstitute a ban on unlimited contributions to
political parties. The money is used primarily for "issue
ads,", which indirectly focus on candidates.
1998: Disclosure of Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers for donors and
China's attempts at influence buying, prompt the Congress to
investigate allegations of improper fundraising by the Democratic
Party and the Clinton re-election campaign.
1999: Lobbying efforts in Washington soar, with 38 registered
lobbyists and $2.7 million in lobbying expenditures for every member
of Congress.
2000: National Democratic and Republican parties raise a record
$160.5 million in unregulated soft money during the first 15 months
of the 2000 election cycle, or nearly double the amount raised in
a comparable period for the 1996 election.
| 