When we sat down to write our new book, “The Partisan Divide: Congress in Crisis,” we knew there was no more important issue than the current campaign finance debacle.
The system of unlimited political money — much of it “dark” money that doesn’t have to be publicly disclosed — is threatening the future of our democracy. And even the contributions that must be disclosed often come from just a handful of wealthy families who are not necessarily looking out for the interests of the average voter.
We each served as chairman of our party’s House campaign committees. And we both spoke out against passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill in 2002. We predicted that the legislation, by ending fully reportable political party “soft money” (corporate, labor and large individual contributions), would inevitably divert big money to shadowy outside groups with narrow political agendas.
The U.S. Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision made this come true in spades. Prior to Citizens United, rich individuals could spend unlimited sums to buy political ads to attack candidates. Citizens United extended this right to corporations and labor unions.
Now we have the worst of both worlds. Political parties that have been centering forces in American politics are denied funding to support their candidates; and wealthy individuals and other special interests can give millions of dollars to pollute the airwaves. It’s the Wild West and our democracy is at risk.
We made a number of suggestions on the financing of campaigns in our book that we believe would end the partisan divide in our Congress.
Let’s start with public disclosure.
A significant amount of political money from corporations, unions and the super-rich goes to social welfare organizations — 501(c)(4) groups — that have no obligation to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission. We have proposed that Congress pass legislation requiring that any organization that purchases political ads mentioning a federal candidate by name must disclose its contributors quarterly to the FEC. As is often said, sunshine — or transparency — is the best disinfectant.
However, that doesn’t deal with the right of corporations or labor unions to make large contributions to an outside group. That could only be changed by a constitutional amendment that overrides the Citizens United case. It is hard to amend the Constitution but, if the public is mad enough, this could happen.
Then there is the case of wealthy individuals making exceedingly large contributions either to a candidate-specific super PAC, which currently must be disclosed to the FEC, or to 501(c)(4) organizations, which do not have to be disclosed. Altering this would also require a constitutional amendment because there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that protect the right of wealthy individuals to engage in unlimited political activity on the basis that money equals speech.
We can’t limit how much money someone spends on politics as long as these contributions do not go directly to a candidate’s campaign and there is no “coordination” between the candidate and the individual or outside group supporting the candidate. This, in reality, is nonsense as there often is plenty of “coordination” in our current system.
A possible solution would be a constitutional amendment providing that political contributions by an individual donor do not constitute free speech under the First Amendment and can be regulated by Congress.
We also would have Congress eliminate the provision in McCain-Feingold that prevents individuals, corporations and unions from contributing “soft” money to political parties as long as these contributions are fully disclosed. Amending the Constitution to prevent large individual donations outside the party structure would be very difficult.
We make other recommendations, including nonpartisan commissions to draw congressional districts and a uniform national date for U.S. House and Senate primaries to increase voter turnout and lessen the power of well-organized extreme elements in the nomination of candidates.
However, it all starts with money. If we don’t address that problem, nothing else may make a difference.
Martin Frost, a Democrat from Texas, served in Congress from 1979 to 2005. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, served from 1994 to 2008.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
