The root problem in politics and government is too much money. First, the enormous amount of money spent on campaigns leads to pervasive negative advertising; leaving most citizens feeling disgusted and disillusioned.
Elections where incumbents outspend challengers 10 to 1, or more, make the system seemed rigged, like professional wrestling matches with predetermined winners. Many people feel marginalized by a political system fueled by big money, especially from outside special interest groups and wealthy contributors.
Second, too much money in politics leads to substandard government, or worse, kleptocracy. It results in special interest groups and lobbyists having undue influence with legislators and regulators. This influence helps big money groups shape policy to their liking by favorably tilting playing fields, or by allowing easier access to the public trough.
People lose confidence in our system when they see a too cozy relationship between government officials and big money. This includes elected officials and government employees going to work in high paying jobs after leaving public service; in some cases working for the industry for which they used to make laws, or oversee (e.g., most recently, Eric Cantor).
Citizens losing faith in our political system is an exceedingly bad thing. It can lead to a vicious downward cycle of distrust in the system, a place where abject cynicism is the norm and where we may have already arrived. People need to feel like they have a stake in elections and government.
Given that campaign finance laws have been meddled with by courts and legislators – solving this problem requires a constitutional amendment. I do not come to this conclusion lightly as amending the constitution should be a last resort to solve political problems. When we do so, we need to be very careful and judicious. In their wisdom, the founding fathers made amending the constitution difficult.
However, as Thomas Jefferson said, “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. “
Circumstances have changed. Corporations are now considered people and money is considered free speech. There is now no limit in how much can be spent by super PACs or 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations on elections. With the latter there is no disclosure of where the money comes from (dark money). It feels like a return to smoke-filled rooms of yore. Should elections be decided by those with the most money – especially outside and dark money? As Jefferson said, we must change with the times.
This amendment should allow legislatures to limit political contributions to individuals and exclude groups such as: Corporations, unions, non-citizens, and anonymous organizations. It should give Congress and states the authority to limit contribution amounts and/or create a public campaign finance system.
The amendment will transform our campaign finance system and allow candidates for federal and state offices to run competitive campaigns by relying on donations, large and small, mostly from their constituents. It will make elected officials accountable to voters, instead of outside big money interests.
An amendment will rebuild public trust and encourage participation by Americans of every background, properly placing most financing of elections with citizens from their respective states and districts. When this amendment passes, it will mean that all voters can support candidates without getting drowned out by big money.
Fixing the money problem will have residual benefits. A level playing field in elections will inspire more qualified candidates to run for office and make term limits unnecessary. Elected officials listening more to constituents and less to big money should lead to less gridlock. Less big money influence will reduce government waste and spending on unnecessary programs. Reducing waste and unnecessary spending will help reduce massive deficits and national debt; and could lead to a smaller federal government.
Thoreau said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Big money is the root problem in our political and governing systems today. We have a choice to make – will we continue to hack? Or start digging?