“We the wealthy…”
--
What would you buy with $889 million? A fleet of yachts? A television station? Maybe a small island? A Politico source reports that in 2016, Charles and David Koch plan to use $889 million to influence (buy) elections. The figure will easily exceed the combined $708 million spent by both the DNC and RNC during the 2012 general election. Although this news conjures images of Scrooges sitting in a smoke filled room, it is all highly legal. Using recent court decisions, the Koch brothers, Hilary Clinton funders, and others will infuse historic levels of money into the 2016 presidential elections. What’s more is that laws may ensure you never find out the name of your favorite politicians funder(s). Loose campaign finance laws pose a serious threat to the integrity of our electoral process. Serious campaign finance reform is crucial in protecting the voices of individual Americans and preserving the validity of our democracy.
The 2012 election was a petri dish for new campaign finance laws, specifically the Citizens United ruling which allowed for the creation of super-PACs. According to a Demos study, campaign spending during 2012 topped $5.2 billion. Of that total, candidates raised 62%, 18% came from the Democratic and Republican Party, and 20% was outside spending. From 2012 we learned that outside spending decreases the influence of the average constituent, hides the faces of wealthy donors, and blurs the lines of ethical campaign practices.
While there are limits on how much individuals can donate to candidates, new laws make it possible for businesses and wealthy individuals to donate unlimited amounts through “independent expenditure-only committees” (super-PACs). Together, the Romney and Obama campaigns raised $313 million from individuals donating $200 or less. That money represented at least 3.7 million people donating what they could afford. In the same election the top 32 Super PAC contributors donated the same amount. In other words, 32 people equaled the influence of 3.7 million individuals. Additionally, super-PACs use loopholes to avoid disclosure laws that require candidate and party spending be reported. In 2012, 31% of outside spending was legally unreported.
Candidates are prohibited from collaborating with outside funding groups. Many super-PACs, however, are run by former staff members of candidates. During the 2012 Republican primary, the super-PAC, Our Destiny PAC, raised $2.7 million to support Jon Huntsman, Jr. An FEC report shows that the super-PAC was created and run by Huntsman’s father, Jon Huntsman, Sr., who contributed $1.9 million to Our Destiny PAC himself.
Without election reform, it is likely that the influence of outside money will grow exponentially. Already, super-PACs are gearing up for the 2016 election. In 2013, the super-PAC, Ready for Hillary, was created to support the potential presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Ready for Hillary’s creator and Executive Director, Adam Parkhomenk, was a staff member on Clinton’s 2008 Democratic nomination campaign. Clinton hasn’t even announced her candidacy for president and already, the super-PAC has raised $12 million. Much of the outside contributions for the 2016 campaign will be even more difficult to track than in 2012. The $889 million contribution from the Koch brothers will likely be spread throughout multiple super-PACs. This further manipulation of disclosure laws will ensure that voters will never truly understand who funds the politicians they are voting for.
In 2013, Representatives David Price (D-NC) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced the Empowering Citizens Act (ECA), a legislative attempt at campaign reform. The bill, which never made it to a vote, seeks to increase the influence of average voters and strengthen the regulation of super-PACs. Under ECA, individual contributions will be matched with public funds at a 5:1 ratio, giving a greater voice to voters like you and I. The ECA also regulates super-PACs by strictly defining the term “coordination”, specifying what exactly is an unethical relationship between super-PACs and candidates. It prevents candidates from helping the super-PAC to raise money and prevents associates of candidates from running the super-PAC.
Although it’s unlikely we’ll see legislation eliminating big money in the near future, regulating super-PACs can go a long way in protecting the voice of the average citizen. The DISCLOSE Act, a proposed bill with bi-partisan support, strengthens finance disclosure laws, allowing voters to know how their candidates are funded. Additionally, legislation is needed to regulate the relationship between candidates and super-PACs.
There is no reasonable or ideological argument for loose campaign finance laws. Historically, both liberals and conservatives have agreed on the importance of protecting electoral integrity. So why the pushback on reform? Many of the congressmen and women who fight against campaign finance reform benefit from outside spending. They are protecting the loopholes that helped to get them into office. Ultimately, an increase in outside spending threatens our electoral process and with it, the heart of our democracy.
