Money Poltics, the Court, and the Demise of Democracy

The Supreme Court has struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law governing so-called “issue ads” that are thinly-disguised endorsements or criticisms of candidates, funded mostly by corporations.

Let’s be clear. Money is polluting American politics as never before. But the central problem isn’t the issue ads. They’re small potatoes relative to the mammoth sums donated directly the the candidates, mostly by big contributors. This coming Friday, presidential candidates will file their fundraising totals for the second quarter of the year. This is where the real action is.

Until the 1960s, presidential candidates were usually chosen in conventions. Then state primaries became the deciding force. Now even the primaries are declining in importance, and the real nominating process is happening elsewhere and earlier – in quarterly reports filed with the Federal Election Commission showing how much money each candidate has raised during the year before the convention.

The quarterly totals tell the big contributors – lobbyists, corporate PACs, corporate executives, and partners of large financial firms – where the smart money is going, and they follow with their own money because in this race no one wants to be left behind. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy , a bit like investments in commodity futures. Hog bellies, soybeans, and presidential candidates – the dynamic is similar. By placing their bets early and accurately, these investors secure a seat at the winner’s table. This means special access and influence, or at least the appearance of such, which is almost as useful.

The incipient 2008 presidential election is already turning out to be the most expensive in history. And although the campaigns trumpet how many small donors they’ve rounded up, the leading candidates in both parties are relying mostly on big donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

What to do? This Supreme Court will continue to use the battling ram of the first amendment to protect the rights of the rich and the corporations in order to mute the voices of the rest of us. So the real question is how to avoid the Supreme Court’s wrath while at the same time putting real limits on the power of money in elections. The best idea I’ve heard is from Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School. Essentially, he wants to require that all contributions be put in blind trusts for each candidate, so candidates can use the money but cannot know who contributed what.

Get it? This way, the fat cats can support whomever they want and their first amendment free speech rights are protected. But no one gets a seat at the winner’s table because the winners won’t know who they’re beholden to.