Money makes the candidate

Posted 8/21/12

The River Reporter does not endorse political candidates, and we will not do so in this election, but we do endorse one of the central themes of independent congressional candidate Nick …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Money makes the candidate

Posted

The River Reporter does not endorse political candidates, and we will not do so in this election, but we do endorse one of the central themes of independent congressional candidate Nick Troiano—that there is too much money influencing political outcomes in the United States, and that is not healthy for a democracy.

Congressman Tom Marino, a Republican who is running for a third term in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, which includes Wayne and Pike counties, as of September 30, had collected $913,915 for his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and their website opensecrets.org.

Of that, $409,995 came from “wealthy individuals” or rich people and companies, $463,674 came from political action committees (PACs), and only $40,246 or about 4% came from small individual donations. So, if a federal issue arises that pits the interests of the poor or middle class against wealthy corporations or wealthy individuals, it would be naïve to believe that Marino, like all politicians on both sides of the aisle, would not be mindful of who has given him the most support in the past.

In this case, the largest industry group to donate to Marino’s campaign is classified by opensecrets.org as TV/movies/music; it’s likely not coincidental that Marino sits on the intellectual property subcommittee.

Marino’s opponents, who currently don’t have seats in congress and therefore can’t vote on issues that might impact wealthy donors and individuals, collected much less in the way of campaign finances. Democrat Scott Brion collected $164,573 as of September 30, and Trioano, who is running as an Independent, collected $142,429.

Across the river in the 19th Congressional District in New York, which includes Sullivan and Ulster counties, Congressman Chris Gibson, a Republican, is also running for a third term. Gibson raised $2,954,326 as of September 30. Sean Eldridge, a Democrat who currently holds no congressional seat, raised $3,944,211, which he was able to do, at least in part, because his wealthy husband is a co-founder of Facebook.

Gibson has accused Eldridge of trying to buy a seat in the House of Representatives. We would say both candidates are trying to do that; they just have different ways of raising the large amount of money it takes to do so. With the current system, all politicians in contested races are forced to raise money to “buy” their seats, and now there are also the Super PACs that can spend unlimited amounts.

Again, according to opensecrets.org, Gibson has benefited from the spending of at least eight outside groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), which spent $650,000 on ads in support of Gibson and opposing Eldridge. According to Wikipedia, USCC “supported corporate personhood, allowing corporations to spend unlimited sums on electioneering, via an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v FEC.”

We have come to this point in large part because a majority of our U.S. Supreme Court justices believe that for constitutional, legal purposes money is the same thing as speech and corporations are the same as people. And if that results in a system moving toward one dollar, one vote, rather than one person, one vote, which is clearly the case since the Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v FEC decisions, so be it.

John Bonifaz, a constitutional attorney and the president of Free Speech for People, an organization that “works to challenge the misuse of corporate power and restore republican democracy to the people,” addressed the subject at the website (tinyurl.com/o32fkj7) of the Brennan Center for Law. He wrote, “In its Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, the Court swept away a century of precedent that barred corporate money in our elections. And, it endorsed the dangerous fiction that corporations have the same constitutional rights as living, breathing people. In effect, this gives corporations a veto over our democratically enacted laws, because a constitutional right trumps a regular law when the two conflict. This threatens our laws protecting the safety of our food, the air we breathe, our health care, our civil rights, and the fundamental underpinnings of our democracy—essentially, any law that could get in the way of corporate profits.”

He also argues that allowing wealthy corporations and individuals to dominate the electoral process is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

He says reversing the damage that’s been done by several Supreme Court rulings in this area can be done through a constitutional amendment and his organization is working toward that.

He writes, “Many of our past amendments have overturned egregious Supreme Court rulings to enable people to participate in our society on equal terms, including the 13th Amendment ending slavery, the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, and the 26th Amendment, which established voting rights for all citizens beginning at age 18.”

Other countries have long recognized that great wealth has a negative impact on the political process, and have taken steps to limit money in elections. According to a report from the Library of Congress, Great Britain did it about 130 years ago. It says, “Legislation to prevent excessive spending by electoral candidates in the United Kingdom has been in place since 1883.” In general, election spending by candidates, parties and advocacy groups is a fraction of what it is here.

We wish our politicians in the 21st Century were as eager to protect the sanctity of democracy as were the lawmakers in England in the 19th Century.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here