Escaping the Progressive Donor Dilemma
If you believe, like most Americans, that our campaign finance system is broken, can you justify participating in it? Progressive donors face that familiar question this year. With millions of dollars pouring into campaigns across the country, injecting more money into elections feels like being part of the problem. While unilaterally disarming means that large contributions supporting Republicans will go unanswered, and progressive candidates could lose by close margins in critical races. I’ve wrestled with this question as an advocate for campaign finance reform, a donor, and a former Congressional candidate.
Regardless of who Republicans ultimately nominate, we all know the stakes are high this year. From a Supreme Court vacancy to the future of our economy, environment, and standing in the world, this election will have lasting consequences. The circus-like nature of the Republican primary only underscores how important it is that Democrats prevail in November. Whether progressive donors participate or not, the truth remains that conservative funders and corporations will spend significant sums to elect Republicans. So can we afford to unilaterally disarm out of principle? Or should we participate in the big money madness?
Fortunately, we have an opportunity to escape that dilemma. This year, while we must play by the broken rules that currently exist, we can also work to change them. On Election Day voters will not only elect a new President and representatives up and down the ticket, but in half a dozen states and municipalities, significant campaign finance reform initiatives will also be on the ballot. Washington State, Arizona, South Dakota, and Miami will likely vote on citizen-funded election proposals to amplify small dollar contributions and enable candidates to run for office without the support of large donors or corporations. Arkansas, Missouri, and likely Idaho will vote on measures to reduce contribution limits, increase transparency, and reform lobbying rules to stop the revolving door. All of these measures have the potential to dramatically change the rules of the game and reduce the influence of big money in politics.
We have seen the power of state and local victories in so many movements — from marriage equality to drug policy reform — and their impact on building momentum and a national consensus for change. We are on the cusp of a similar tipping point for reducing the influence of money in politics. Last year, voters embraced significant reforms at the ballot in Maine and Seattle by deciding that elections funded by citizens are preferable to elections funded by corporations and special interests. This year, when voters’ frustration is palpable, more states and cities could become models for reform.
While I cannot deny the importance of winning the White House and down-ticket races and will support those efforts, I choose to escape the progressive donor dilemma by also promoting long-term structural change through campaign finance initiatives across the country.
Some howl hypocrisy at this approach. How can you champion campaign finance reform and make large political contributions in the same breath? To be fair, opponents of reform are nothing if not consistent: they consistently work to undermine and erode our campaign finance rules. They consistently support candidates who defend Citizens United and corporate “personhood” and consistently block all campaign finance reform, from disclosure to citizen funded elections.
I fervently believe that Americans deserve better than our current political system. To make reform a reality, we must support the organizations and activists fighting for it and elect candidates who will work to reduce the influence of money in politics. The “hypocrisy” attack suggests that the world would be a better place if we allow corporate and special interest money supporting Republicans to go unanswered, if we don’t stand up to anti-labor, anti-LGBT, and anti-environment candidates. I don’t accept that sitting on the sidelines will make the world a better place.
Those of us who are able to contribute, whether it’s $5 or $5,000, should support candidates who will fight for a more fair and equal America. At the same time, if we truly believe in campaign finance reform, then we should invest in making it a reality. That’s not hypocrisy — it’s a strategy for reform. If we do both — support progressive candidates and reform initiatives — we will be one step closer to a more representative democracy with lower contribution limits, citizen-funded elections, and the end of Citizens United. If we don’t, we will be stuck with the status quo or worse.
While it is easy to be cynical or dismissive about the prospects for change, the fight for reform is more promising than at any time in recent history. This year, we can escape the progressive donor dilemma by supporting a tipping point moment for reform and securing both short-term progressive victories and the long-term structural change that we so badly need.
