POINT: Campaign finance reform–need control of the system
We are often taught, in our classes, in our homes, and in other spheres of cultural association, to celebrate our freedoms, primary among which is the very first enshrined by the Bill of Rights, our freedom of expression. To this perception of freedom, however, there exists a dark underside — that while any of us are free to speak our minds, our ability to do so in a meaningful manner is increasingly dependent upon one’s financial wealth.
Fervent protestations and denials from elected officials that campaign contributions buy special favors are frequently made, but the flow of special-interest provisions emanating from Congress and the White House, in direct proportion to the financial flow in the opposite direction, leaves no room for any such doubt. In myriad fields, from public lands policy, to health care, to transportation, to trade policy, a politician’s position on issues can be very reliably predicted, with high accuracy, by examining his or her list of campaign contributors.
In the 2002 election cycle, private election contributions totaled $1.225 billion, of which corporations involved in logging, mining, and drilling our planet accounted for at least $27 million to candidates and far more to the parties. Furthermore, 83 percent of the total contributions were made by only one-tenth of 1 percent of America’s citizens. This overwhelming tide of cash shows no sign of abating, and is irrevocably creating two classes of participation in American policy-making — those who can afford to buy the policies they want, and those who cannot.
In only one of the most recent, egregious examples, Eli Lilly, a major vaccine manufacturer, obtained wholesale immunity from lawsuits filed by the families of children who developed autism after receiving vaccines with a mercury-containing preservative manufactured by his company. The provision was inserted by an anonymous, cowardly senator who refuses to be identified (though Republican leader Bill Frist tops the suspect list). Lilly’s potential liability ran well into the billions, if a jury found that the vaccine was causing autism.
To secure this provision, Eli Lilly spent $1.6 million in campaign contributions in 2000 — 79 percent to Republicans. A good investment by any standard. This corruption has reached a new level in the Bush administration, which has all but banished communications between White House policy staff and concerned groups, if those groups have not contributed to the Republican Party.
Last year, a political miracle occurred when the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was finally passed into law. Most importantly, this law restricts the use of so-called “soft money,” the unlimited, unregulated money that can be laundered through the parties, thereby avoiding contribution limits. While McCain-Feingold marked an important step forward, special-interest lawyers are already applying their unbounded creativity in devising loopholes and end-runs around this law. Meanwhile, the “hard-money” contributions under $2,000 to individual candidates are more popular then ever, and are being massively abused through endless accounting trickery that enables one entity to make thousands of “contributions.”
Opponents of McCain-Feingold make the absurd assertion that such financial limitations constitute an infringement on the freedom of expression, arguing essentially that money is speech. Ironically, this argument exposes the fundamentally corrupt and morally untenable position of those who would defend the status quo — that speech itself has become a commodity to be bought and sold on the free market, rather than a basic right of the human experience, to be guaranteed by a set of social norms more fundamental than capitalism.
We must take back our election system. Free speech and democratic participation should not be a function of one’s wealth. America is teetering dangerously on the edge of a cascading accumulation of money and power in the hands of a few powerful corporations and institutions, while those most vulnerable are least able to participate in their democracy. The founding fathers would not recognize today’s “democracy.” In their day, the idea of chartered corporations wielding political influence or pushing elections was inconceivable (the influence-peddling of corporations is actually a recent phenomenon — they weren’t mistakenly recognized as legal “persons” until 1896.)
Massachusetts, Arizona, and Maine have instituted forms of a “clean elections” system that provides public financing for credible and proven campaigns (as determined by a small number of matching donations). Third, fourth, and fifth parties are advancing, politicians are under far less pressure to prostitute themselves legislatively for campaign donors, and democracy itself is being reinvigorated at the state level. America must forge ahead with a similar system, or our democracy itself may never recover.
Jim Steitz is awaiting graduation and is a member of the Sierra Student Coalition. Comments can be sent to jim.steitz@usu.edu.