By MARSHA MERCER
Americans have a hate-hate relationship with money
in politics.
We hate the corrupting influence of lobbyists and
big money, but most of us also hate to open our own wallets to campaigns and political
parties. We take a dim view as well of public or taxpayer funding of campaigns.
Some wish for a constitutional amendment, which is
about as likely as a magic wand, to make the money in politics disappear. Instead,
we cede influence to a sliver of the population that does contribute to
political campaigns and committees.
Only 0.2 percent of Americans gave $200 or more in
the 2014 election cycle and only 0.04 percent gave more than $2,600, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in
politics.
“In other words, current rules limiting how much an individual can give to party committees
haven’t been a pressing problem for most Americans,” the center says on its
opensecrets.org website.
But the fortunate few who do feel restrained by
current limits have an ally in Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The incoming majority
leader negotiated a provision in the $1.1 trillion federal spending bill (on page
1,599 of 1,603 pages) to raise the limits on contributions by wealthy people to
national party committees.
In
effect, the provision guts what’s left of McCain-Feingold, the bipartisan 2002 law
that prohibited large contributions by the wealthy and corporations to national
party committees and required disclosure of those contributions. Donors soon
found that the law allowed individuals and corporations to contribute “soft”
money that didn’t have to be reported to outside groups.
This
year, the maximum someone can give either the Democratic National Committee or
Republican National Committee is $32,400. Under the new scenario, the political
committees could set up three new separate accounts with separate contribution limits.
Estimates vary on how much people then could give.
In a
letter to senators, six campaign finance watchdog groups said a single
individual could contribute $777,600 per year or $1,555,200 per two-year
election cycle. A couple could give $3,110,400 per two-year cycle, said the
letter signed by Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and
three other groups.
“There
is absolutely no justification for allowing these massive contributions that
can only be given by millionaires and billionaires and are bound to result in
corruption and national scandals,” the letter said.
So where
did the bail-out for the parties come from?
“This
provision was worked out in a bipartisan way to allow those of us who are
organizing political conventions to raise the money from private sources as
opposed to using taxpayer funds,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters.
It’s not
the first time Congress has cut public funding of campaigns. In April,
President Barack Obama signed bipartisan legislation to eliminate taxpayer
funding for national political conventions and redirect the money to childhood
disease research at the National Institutes of Health.
Former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., championed the measure, which
was named the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act in remembrance of a
10-year-old girl in Leesburg, Va., who died of brain cancer.
Taxpayers have been paying part of the conventions’ costs
since 1976. In 2012, taxpayers gave each party about $18 million for the
events, a pittance of the total bill, most of which was paid by corporate and
individual donors.
We are witnessing the
last gasp of the campaign finance reform era that was born after the Watergate scandal
in the mid-1970s. Although the Supreme Court has watered down laws seeking to
limit contributions, the people never embraced the laws either.
Congress approved a $1 checkoff ($2 for a married couple) to help pay for presidential
campaigns. Later tripled to $3 and $6, the checkoff never caught on. At its
most popular, 29 percent of taxpayers used it, in 1980. By 2012, only 6 percent
did.
Since 1976, about $1.5 billion has gone to publicly
financed candidates and nominating conventions, according to the Congressional
Research Service. But presidential candidates have chosen to opt out rather
than abide by the limits that accompany public funds.
In 2012, Obama became the first president elected
without accepting public funds.
We tend to act only in the wake of scandals, so it
may take the next Watergate to wake us up to the need for campaign finance
reform. Until then, the people with deep pockets will dig even deeper, and reap
the rewards.
© 2014
Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
No comments:
Post a Comment