Why Campaign Finance Reform Is Vital To America"s Future
Of all the social problems that America faces today, campaign finance reform is, by far, the most important issue.
A former U.
S.
president said it bluntly, "Our government in Washington has lost its basic integrity.
" This quote highlights how far America has fallen as a nation; how money is more powerful and more important than ones integrity and principles.
Nowadays, corporations are people with more rights than actual people.
Politicians are commodities to be purchased, at will, by anyone with enough money.
There are many simple, constitutional changes that would take America down the right path.
Though there are many problems that need to be fixed, most of these problems would fix themselves if money was not the primary concern of politicians.
Existing legislation including the Fair Elections Now Act, tighter regulation, and new ideas are needed in order to constitutionally bring trust back into our political system.
To successfully mount a campaign for the United States Senate, senators or would-be senators need to raise, on average, two-thousand five hundred dollars a day for two years.
Certain candidates spend more than ten hours per week calling donors.
In totality, it is estimated that any given candidate will spend as much as 31 hours per week fundraising for their next election.
With these statistics, it is very obvious to see that wealthy people have the upper hand as far as who will be elected.
Recognizing elected officials' powerful need for money, wealthy individuals and corporations purchase congressman using several strategies, some more subtle than others.
Corporations will subtly give job-offers to sitting congressmen with the expectation that those congressmen will advance their agenda over the needs of the people they are supposed to represent.
Wealthy individuals will also subtly threaten to spend their money on a more "suitable candidate" who will look out for their interests.
Of course, there is the more direct approach with limited individual donations and the use of political action groups.
All that changed for the worse in 2010 when a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, gave corporations rights very similar to those of ordinary citizens.
More importantly, this ruling allowed corporations to filter unlimited amounts of money through political action groups which can then use the money to pay for unlimited advertising for the candidate they are purchasing.
What's worse is that these same corporations can take government subsidies and use that very same money to purchase their politicians.
Holly Sklar highlights the corporate welfare state where companies like Bechtel Corporation received several no-bid government contracts, based only on the recommendation of election officials, while having a history of sub-standard, overpriced work.
This same company has then donated millions of dollars to ensure their bottom line remains safe at the expense of everyone else.
This practice of giving no-bid contracts is illegal in many western countries, including the European Union, but not the United States.
The reason that these types of contracts are illegal in some places is because they are often "fraught with suspicion that the company used illegal or immoral means to exclude competition.
" This type of behavior would not happen if politicians did not have such an urgent need for money.
Optimism had ruled in America according to Bob Herbert in his ominous article, A Fire In The Basement.
That optimism has begun to turn to cynicism in the face of the Citizens United ruling.
People now realize that large corporations have purchased the United States government and this realization is disheartening.
People have not completely given up hope though; there are actions that can be taken and after evaluating the many potential solutions, the only viable option is to have citizen funded elections.
The path towards this has been initiated with the creation of a bill entitled, Fair Elections Now Act, which allows qualified candidates to receive public funds in order to maintain a competitive election.
This would free up a candidate from having to spend so much time fundraising and allow them to concentrate on the needs of their constituents.
The next step is to significantly extend the waiting period that a government official must go through before becoming a lobbyist: To at least 12 years.
This would give a sufficient amount of time to insure there is enough turnaround within congress to potentially avoid the perception of impropriety.
This rule would also apply to the field of work in which the Senator specialized while in office.
For example, if a Senator was a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he would be required to go through a 12 year waiting period before he could go into that industry.
It would seem that the above recommendations are fairly simple and obvious.
The more complicated issue is lobbying, which needs to be much more tightly regulated.
Princeton University defines lobbying as "someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer.
" That very definition basically means that for the right incentive, politicians will act in the best interest of the corporation instead of the interests of the people that they are purporting to represent.
Lobbyists do provide a useful tool in legislation so it would need to be handled very carefully.
They educate and provide valuable information to legislators when laws are being drafted.
Sometimes laws are drafted with the best of intentions which end up having disastrous ancillary results.
Input from the industries associated with those laws is vital, but the way that input is given creates problems.
One of the many ways they exert their influence is by hosting fundraisers for the benefit of the politicians.
Lobbying should only take place within specific times within the physical office of the congressman.
Corporations should be able to hire lobbyists but the money aspect needs to be removed from the equation completely.
The act of "bundling" needs to be made illegal.
A bundler, many times a lobbyist, collects money from their friends and other political action groups to spend on campaigns.
These people are typically very wealthy people trying to advance their own agendas.
Finally, complete transparency in any and all political donations with strict penalties for skirting the law must be required of all donors.
Currently, through assorted loopholes, donors are able to hide their donations through non-profits and political action groups.
If one seeks to donate towards a campaign, it should be made in the open for all to see.
Proponents of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and other existing campaign finance laws say that limiting corporations in any way would curb free speech, which would be a violation of our constitution.
The argument is not that free speech needs to be restricted, but that the people of the United States need a political system that they can trust, in which politicians will look out for the people they are supposed to represent versus the people that fund their elections.
The Fair Elections Now Act is an opt-in program, not mandatory.
Free speech will not be limited; a perception of good faith and trust can be created if people truly want to revive our democracy.
A former U.
S.
president said it bluntly, "Our government in Washington has lost its basic integrity.
" This quote highlights how far America has fallen as a nation; how money is more powerful and more important than ones integrity and principles.
Nowadays, corporations are people with more rights than actual people.
Politicians are commodities to be purchased, at will, by anyone with enough money.
There are many simple, constitutional changes that would take America down the right path.
Though there are many problems that need to be fixed, most of these problems would fix themselves if money was not the primary concern of politicians.
Existing legislation including the Fair Elections Now Act, tighter regulation, and new ideas are needed in order to constitutionally bring trust back into our political system.
To successfully mount a campaign for the United States Senate, senators or would-be senators need to raise, on average, two-thousand five hundred dollars a day for two years.
Certain candidates spend more than ten hours per week calling donors.
In totality, it is estimated that any given candidate will spend as much as 31 hours per week fundraising for their next election.
With these statistics, it is very obvious to see that wealthy people have the upper hand as far as who will be elected.
Recognizing elected officials' powerful need for money, wealthy individuals and corporations purchase congressman using several strategies, some more subtle than others.
Corporations will subtly give job-offers to sitting congressmen with the expectation that those congressmen will advance their agenda over the needs of the people they are supposed to represent.
Wealthy individuals will also subtly threaten to spend their money on a more "suitable candidate" who will look out for their interests.
Of course, there is the more direct approach with limited individual donations and the use of political action groups.
All that changed for the worse in 2010 when a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, gave corporations rights very similar to those of ordinary citizens.
More importantly, this ruling allowed corporations to filter unlimited amounts of money through political action groups which can then use the money to pay for unlimited advertising for the candidate they are purchasing.
What's worse is that these same corporations can take government subsidies and use that very same money to purchase their politicians.
Holly Sklar highlights the corporate welfare state where companies like Bechtel Corporation received several no-bid government contracts, based only on the recommendation of election officials, while having a history of sub-standard, overpriced work.
This same company has then donated millions of dollars to ensure their bottom line remains safe at the expense of everyone else.
This practice of giving no-bid contracts is illegal in many western countries, including the European Union, but not the United States.
The reason that these types of contracts are illegal in some places is because they are often "fraught with suspicion that the company used illegal or immoral means to exclude competition.
" This type of behavior would not happen if politicians did not have such an urgent need for money.
Optimism had ruled in America according to Bob Herbert in his ominous article, A Fire In The Basement.
That optimism has begun to turn to cynicism in the face of the Citizens United ruling.
People now realize that large corporations have purchased the United States government and this realization is disheartening.
People have not completely given up hope though; there are actions that can be taken and after evaluating the many potential solutions, the only viable option is to have citizen funded elections.
The path towards this has been initiated with the creation of a bill entitled, Fair Elections Now Act, which allows qualified candidates to receive public funds in order to maintain a competitive election.
This would free up a candidate from having to spend so much time fundraising and allow them to concentrate on the needs of their constituents.
The next step is to significantly extend the waiting period that a government official must go through before becoming a lobbyist: To at least 12 years.
This would give a sufficient amount of time to insure there is enough turnaround within congress to potentially avoid the perception of impropriety.
This rule would also apply to the field of work in which the Senator specialized while in office.
For example, if a Senator was a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he would be required to go through a 12 year waiting period before he could go into that industry.
It would seem that the above recommendations are fairly simple and obvious.
The more complicated issue is lobbying, which needs to be much more tightly regulated.
Princeton University defines lobbying as "someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer.
" That very definition basically means that for the right incentive, politicians will act in the best interest of the corporation instead of the interests of the people that they are purporting to represent.
Lobbyists do provide a useful tool in legislation so it would need to be handled very carefully.
They educate and provide valuable information to legislators when laws are being drafted.
Sometimes laws are drafted with the best of intentions which end up having disastrous ancillary results.
Input from the industries associated with those laws is vital, but the way that input is given creates problems.
One of the many ways they exert their influence is by hosting fundraisers for the benefit of the politicians.
Lobbying should only take place within specific times within the physical office of the congressman.
Corporations should be able to hire lobbyists but the money aspect needs to be removed from the equation completely.
The act of "bundling" needs to be made illegal.
A bundler, many times a lobbyist, collects money from their friends and other political action groups to spend on campaigns.
These people are typically very wealthy people trying to advance their own agendas.
Finally, complete transparency in any and all political donations with strict penalties for skirting the law must be required of all donors.
Currently, through assorted loopholes, donors are able to hide their donations through non-profits and political action groups.
If one seeks to donate towards a campaign, it should be made in the open for all to see.
Proponents of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and other existing campaign finance laws say that limiting corporations in any way would curb free speech, which would be a violation of our constitution.
The argument is not that free speech needs to be restricted, but that the people of the United States need a political system that they can trust, in which politicians will look out for the people they are supposed to represent versus the people that fund their elections.
The Fair Elections Now Act is an opt-in program, not mandatory.
Free speech will not be limited; a perception of good faith and trust can be created if people truly want to revive our democracy.
Source...