Robert A. Levine
In this era of unconstrained attack ads and extreme partisan politics, a plague has visited America that increases divisiveness and negativity, generated not by the hand of the Almighty, but through the pockets of the most affluent. This scourge of the SuperPACs has put democracy at risk. A small number of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as unions and other groups, have been pouring money into the SuperPACs to hijack the political process and elect federal officials who favor their interests. Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, financiers, private equity and hedge fund managers are the major contributors. Indeed, it appears that the support of Adelson and his wife ($10 million) is what is keeping the Gingrich candidacy for president alive.
While the SuperPACs have recently had an impact in the GOP primaries, the huge sums they are collecting will certainly play a role in the general election for president as well as congressional and senatorial races. This inflow of money was legitimized by the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United two years ago. However, it now threatens America’s democratic process, where everyone’s voice was presumed to be equal in electing officeholders. But in the name of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court provided a megaphone to wealthy political activists to promulgate their views,
whereas ordinary citizens can only whisper.
One person, one vote is no longer a realistic description of how elections work. When individuals can donate millions to tens of millions of dollars to these SuperPACs, enabling them to influence numerous voters, something is rotten in America. In the Republican primary races in contested states, the media buys of the SuperPACs have dominated the airways, even dwarfing advertisements by the campaigns themselves. While the SuperPACs are supposed to be independent of the campaigns, the strong connections between them are thinly veiled, with many personnel employed by the SuperPACs previously having worked for the campaigns.
Though contributors to the SuperPACs are supposed to be revealed periodically, this is often done after the relevant election has passed, preventing voters from learning who was donating and how much to each candidate. And many of the donations are completely concealed from the public by the donors’ use of limited liability corporations or other entities to shield their identities. Some of the SuperPACs also employ 501(c)(4) affiliates to hide their donors, supposed non-profits that do not have to disclose who gives them money. The Republicans have benefited most from the advent of the SuperPACs, with Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney group, leading the pack. This PAC reined in close to $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year. 10% of all the billionaires in America have already contributed to Romney. But the Obama campaign has recently signaled that it is going to step up its efforts to fund its own SuperPACs to compete with the Republicans.
While there are strict limits on how much any individual can donate to a specific campaign ($2500) or party committee ($30,800) during an election cycle, the big hitters previously got around these restrictions by bundling contributions from friends, relatives and associates together. The Federal Election Commission was able to police these donations to be certain the limits were not being disregarded. But with the SuperPACs after Citizens United, there are no limits and no policing of political donations. A wealthy person or corporation can give any amount to support politicians of his or her choice. It is likely that over time, direct campaign financing will become less significant as the SuperPACs become the main conduit by which people, corporations, unions and other groups back candidates.
Can anything be done to reverse the pernicious ruling of the Supreme Court that has provided the moneyed interests with even more political power than they previously had? Overturning Citizens United which unleashed this scourge would take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither which is likely. Though it does not appear that Congress can stop the influx of cash (even if it were so inclined), it can increase transparency by making all of these contributions immediate public knowledge. Perhaps the negative publicity and rebuke that might follow would be enough for some of the affluent players to opt out of the SuperPAC sweepstakes, not wanting to subject themselves and their businesses to the kind of scrutiny that would result. Of course, getting Congress to act on this is another story.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
While the SuperPACs have recently had an impact in the GOP primaries, the huge sums they are collecting will certainly play a role in the general election for president as well as congressional and senatorial races. This inflow of money was legitimized by the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United two years ago. However, it now threatens America’s democratic process, where everyone’s voice was presumed to be equal in electing officeholders. But in the name of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court provided a megaphone to wealthy political activists to promulgate their views,
One person, one vote is no longer a realistic description of how elections work. When individuals can donate millions to tens of millions of dollars to these SuperPACs, enabling them to influence numerous voters, something is rotten in America. In the Republican primary races in contested states, the media buys of the SuperPACs have dominated the airways, even dwarfing advertisements by the campaigns themselves. While the SuperPACs are supposed to be independent of the campaigns, the strong connections between them are thinly veiled, with many personnel employed by the SuperPACs previously having worked for the campaigns.
Though contributors to the SuperPACs are supposed to be revealed periodically, this is often done after the relevant election has passed, preventing voters from learning who was donating and how much to each candidate. And many of the donations are completely concealed from the public by the donors’ use of limited liability corporations or other entities to shield their identities. Some of the SuperPACs also employ 501(c)(4) affiliates to hide their donors, supposed non-profits that do not have to disclose who gives them money. The Republicans have benefited most from the advent of the SuperPACs, with Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney group, leading the pack. This PAC reined in close to $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year. 10% of all the billionaires in America have already contributed to Romney. But the Obama campaign has recently signaled that it is going to step up its efforts to fund its own SuperPACs to compete with the Republicans.
While there are strict limits on how much any individual can donate to a specific campaign ($2500) or party committee ($30,800) during an election cycle, the big hitters previously got around these restrictions by bundling contributions from friends, relatives and associates together. The Federal Election Commission was able to police these donations to be certain the limits were not being disregarded. But with the SuperPACs after Citizens United, there are no limits and no policing of political donations. A wealthy person or corporation can give any amount to support politicians of his or her choice. It is likely that over time, direct campaign financing will become less significant as the SuperPACs become the main conduit by which people, corporations, unions and other groups back candidates.
Can anything be done to reverse the pernicious ruling of the Supreme Court that has provided the moneyed interests with even more political power than they previously had? Overturning Citizens United which unleashed this scourge would take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither which is likely. Though it does not appear that Congress can stop the influx of cash (even if it were so inclined), it can increase transparency by making all of these contributions immediate public knowledge. Perhaps the negative publicity and rebuke that might follow would be enough for some of the affluent players to opt out of the SuperPAC sweepstakes, not wanting to subject themselves and their businesses to the kind of scrutiny that would result. Of course, getting Congress to act on this is another story.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment