As you probably are aware, yesterday the United States Supreme Court struck down laws restricting the amount of money individuals can give to political parties and political action committees (PACs). Limits on donations to individual politicians still remain, but, if yesterday\’s ruling is any indication, they may at some point be on the way out as well.
Personally, I have a mixed reaction:
-On the negative side, I hate the fact that so much money is pumped into political campaigns by so many special interest groups. While some might see it in benign terms – i.e. people and organizations supporting candidates who share their views – others might see it in cynical terms – i.e. special interest groups offering politicians enough money so that their views will adjust to whoever\’s wallet is opened widest. But, either way, the individual voter\’s influence is left in the dust.
-On the positive side, however, what about freedom of speech? What about the freedom of an individual or a corporate entity (I include unions here) spending as much money and devoting as much resources as it cares to, in an effort to elect people who will further its positions? Why should their rights be abridged?
Additionally, let\’s be honest enough to admit that the efforts to control spending have been abysmal failures? That no matter how the law has been constructed, no matter how many constraints on spending have been created,special interest groups on every side have found end-arounds to circumvent them.
So with that muddled mish-mash of realities in mind, what should we do?
For whatever it is worth (and, admittedly, that may not be much), I have, for years, advocated a system of unlimited contributions – and full disclosure, in real time, of who is doing the contributing.
And, to avoid last-minute influxes of cash to which voters will not find out about until election day, I would add a cut-off date – after which no money can be donated or spent, with severe penalties for anyone caught trying to circumvent it (e.g. the “spend what you need to win, I\’ll find a way to give it to you afterwards” weasels).
I thought that was the best solution then, and I think it is the best solution now.
With this system, freedom is not in any way abridged — and voters know, before they vote, who is giving the money to which candidates and parties, so they can incorporate that knowledge into their decisions on election day.
Is this foolproof? Of course not. People will always find ways around laws. But, in my opinion, it is simpler, more logical, it gives voters more knowledge of who is pulling the strings of each candidate, and makes cheating appreciably harder than it is right now.
Which probably means we\’ll never see anything like it.
