Citizens United is just the beginning
by David Atkins
John Harwood at the New York Times reminds us that the insane and demoralizing amount of money being spent in this presidential cycle is only partly the result of the Citizens United decision:
Citizens United “is an effective rhetorical tool” for opponents of the decision, said Robert Bauer, Mr. Obama’s former White House Counsel. But he plays down its importance in the creation of Super PACs that followed the SpeechNow.org decision.
“People have lumped a lot of issues together under the banner of Citizens United,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who is active on campaign finance issues. Still, he argues that the 2010 decision “changed the psychology” of campaign finance to produce an “anything-goes atmosphere.”
But the largest sums have been raised through the regulated system that now drives the campaign schedules of Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, as well as those of candidates for the House and Senate. Mr. Obama set the standard with the $745 million he raised in 2008 after opting not to participate in the post-Watergate public financing system, under which candidates received taxpayer funds in return for accepting limits on their spending.
Because he remained within that system, Mr. Obama’s 2008 opponent John McCain could spend only the $84 million allocated by the system during the general election. Mr. Obama raised $179 million, or more than twice that amount, for the same period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The public financing system had already eroded amid reluctance of taxpayers to contribute and the increasing ability of candidates to raise large sums through the Internet and other means. But Mr. Obama’s success signals that Mr. McCain will probably prove to have been the last major party nominee who remained within the system...
Some effects of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings may become apparent later. In combination, the Citizens United and SpeechNow cases permitted corporations as well as individuals to donate to Super PACs. Disclosures so far indicate that, while privately held corporations have taken advantage of this, publicly traded companies have not.
“Super PACs have not spent a nickel of Fortune 500 money because they haven’t gotten any,” said Jan Baran, a Republican campaign finance lawyer. Wary of offending shareholders, he explained, executives of those companies have “an overwhelming sense of caution about funding this type of advertising.”
But he noted that might change by November.
In addition to blaming Citizens United for the current shape of campaign finance, Mr. Wertheimer blames Mr. Obama, because he has not pushed for an overhaul of the system.
“However anyone thinks we got here, we now have a system that is going to result in the same kind of widespread, destructive government corruption” that Watergate produced, Mr. Wertheimer said. “The only test for a federal officeholder or candidate is what they are really prepared to do to end this corrupt campaign finance system.”
Another in a series of missed opportunities.
One would think that politicians would want to change this system. Even for those of minimal moral fiber who are advantaged by the system, it's an awful way to live for most normal people. Politicians from assemblymembers on up spend at least half of every single working day fundraising, whether on the phone or at rubber chicken dinners. Part of why so many politicians seem so ignorant of so much on the policy front is that they quite literally don't have time to investigate policy as deeply as they should, because so much of every day is spent trying to raise money. I suppose that works for some people, but it means that only people of a certain personality type willing and able to thrive in that environment can do it. Many of them are good people, but the very nature of the job makes putting good people into office that much harder. I sure as heck don't want to do it. While I would love to craft and debate policy and meet with voters and advocacy groups , I would bristle at the fundraiser circuit and the hours spent on the phone with donors.
People who look at politics from the outside often have this vision of sleazy politicians taking big payoffs and living high on the hog from corporate and interest money, taking cushy lobbyist jobs when they retire. While there is some of that, those of us who work closely with them know that most of the time politicians lead pretty miserable lives, constantly traveling from their home district to the state or national capital, never having time for their families or friends, and constantly under lobbying pressure from all sides. They tend to want to stay elected once they get elected, even trying to hold their seats until they die--which means that the motivation for getting elected is not exactly about the cushy lobbying job on the other side. Many politicians really are in it for the right reasons, or for ego, or as a way of helping to do favors for their friends or favored industries.
None of which means that they shouldn't want to do something to make their own lives a little easier. But the problem is that once politicians get elected, they feel comfortable with the system that got them there. They're nervous and loathe to change it.
The Citizens United ruling gives us the opportunity to tackle not just the problems with undisclosed Super PACs but also the entire mess of campaign finance law. It may take a Constitutional Amendment to get it done, which would be difficult but not necessarily impossible.
It's just a matter of political will--including from the politicians who have to put up with this system in the first place.
.