Relatives asked me a couple of days ago if I wasn't concerned about all the "corporate" money coming into campaigns "anonymously" this year. Implicit in the question is the idea that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court has made soft money campaigning so profitable that literally hundreds of millions have been raised outside the two political parties this year.
Surely the cure is to have more laws to control or, even better, prohibit such activity?
Actually, no. If anything, the new money merely begins to compensate for the even vaster sums of money that government unions have long been able to put into campaigns and the natural advantages that our current laws give to incumbents. Even this year, incumbent Democrats, for example, are far out-raising their Republican opponents.
There definitely are problems that derive from so much unaccountable money, however. For example, have you heard anyone at all talk about the pre-election boost the big pharmaceutical companies gave to Democrats last year in the form of TV ads lauding their support of Mr. Obama's health care program? Everyone knew it was a payment extracted from Big Pharma in return for not opposing the President's plan. The total amounted to a gargantuan $150 million and gave incumbents tremendous positive publicity.
Here's another problem. Some ads by soft money groups, such as the pro-GOP Latino organization that put out a "Don't Vote" ad recently. It was repudiated by the Republicans, but not before it hurt, rather than helped, Republican candidates by seeming to discredit them. In New Jersey this month there are stories about "Tea Party" candidates appearing alongside the Republican and Democratic nominees. Their financial backers are hidden, but widely assumed to be liberal interests that want to cut into Republican votes.
The amount of money in politics is not the real problem, however. Nor are the sources. The problem is that the political parties have been so weakened by campaign laws that they cannot take responsibility for candidates and the candidates cannot count on the parties. In contrast to nebulous groups, please note, parties are accountable. You can find out who gave to them.
Peter J. Wallison, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and Presidential Counsel--now with the American Enterprise Institute--writes that underlying "the controversy is the single most absurd rule in campaign finance--that the political parties cannot coordinate their spending with the candidates they have nominated. Yes, you read that correctly. The Republican and Democratic parties, and all their associated entities and campaign committees, can contribute or coordinate in spending only a little more than $47,000 to a House race and an average of $185,000 to a Senate race (depending on the number of voters in the state). All the rest of party spending in support of its own candidates must be independent of the candidate, just like those independent groups we are hearing so much about in the news every day." (Read his blog post here and look also for his book, Better Parties, Better Government.)
Leave a comment