Why the campaign finance increase helps US democracy
- By Mitchell Blatt
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, December 18, 2014
|
|
|
Late Saturday night, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to fund the government just before the deadline, averting what would have been the second shutdown of the U.S. federal government in as many years. |
Late Saturday night, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to fund the government just before the deadline, averting what would have been the second shutdown of the U.S. federal government in as many years.
The bill that passed was stuffed full of unrelated and special interest measures, including provisions that allow banks protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to trade derivatives, prevent Washington, D.C. from spending money to legalize marijuana (after they voted to do so in a referendum), loosen school lunch nutrition standards, and increase the limit on campaign donations to political parties. The total amount of money that an individual can donate to a political party every year increased eight-fold, from US$97,200 to US$777,600.
The bill "blows an even bigger hole in [campaign finance] limits," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen.
But rather than being a blow to democracy, the increase in campaign finance directed at political parties is a positive move towards well-functioning governance after years of dysfunction. Ever since the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided in 2010, campaign spending has soared. The super rich are pouring millions and tens of millions of dollars into races. But what is important to consider is where that money is going.
In the 2010 Congressional elections, only 8.5 percent of campaign spending was made by outside groups. In 2014, that figure was close to 14 percent. Citizens United allowed for outside groups – notably super PACs – to receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions, but it didn't change anything for political parties.
The effect is that outside spending now plays a much bigger role in races than it has in the past, at the expense of political parties and the candidates themselves. In fact, in five of the most intense Senate races of 2014, outside spending topped spending by candidates. In North Carolina's Senate race, the most expensive in history, 71 percent of spending came from outside groups. It was the same in Colorado, which cost almost US$100 million.
What else has happened over the past four years is that America's government has become a lot more dysfunctional. Since then, Republicans have engaged in a record number of filibusters, intended to block bills or nominations for public office. The United States almost defaulted on its national debt twice, and its government shut down once.
The reason the government shutdown from Oct. 1 to 16, 2013 was the same reason it almost shutdown this time: Republican Sen. Ted Cruz rallied his fellow conservative extremists to oppose any funding bill that didn't include language defunding or delaying the healthcare bill that the Democrats passed in 2010. Republicans had enough votes to pass such a bill in House but not in Senate where they were the minority.
This time, it was once again anti-Obama sentiment that caused Cruz to oppose another funding bill. Shortly after Republicans won control of the Senate in November, President Obama announced his plan to give legal status to potentially millions of illegal immigrants, outraging conservatives who oppose illegal immigration, and Cruz and other Republicans vowed to fight it. Cruz was among those who called for the bill to include a provision banning Obama from implementing what he calls "executive amnesty."
In a caucus full of obstructionists, Ted Cruz is the most obstructionist. The Republican party leadership, which wanted to get the bill passed and ultimately succeeded in doing so, has little control over him.
The GOP needed to get the bill passed because, after Cruz's 2013 shutdown, trust in the Republicans sank, and polls show the public doesn't want another shutdown. But at the end of the day, Cruz doesn't answer to the Republican Party, nor does he answer to the American people. Outside groups provide big money to Cruz and other extremists.
His first Senate election victory in 2012 featured a primary against David Dewhurst, a Republican who, even though he helped pass a bill that forced women undergoing an abortion to view sonograms, was still not viewed as conservative enough by activist groups. In fact, activist groups rallied around Cruz, attacking the "establishment" candidate Dewhurst, and the Club for Growth Action – a super PAC – spent US$5 million opposing Dewhurst. Club for Growth spends more money attacking moderate, or somewhat moderate, Republicans than they do supporting Republicans. They disdain compromise and pragmatism, pushing Republicans to be more ideologically rigid and obstructionist.
In 2014, they spent US$3 million opposing Thad Cochran, a moderate and productive Republican Senator, and supporting Chris McDaniel, a neo-Confederate. They were joined in opposing Cochran by Freedomworks and the Tea Party Citizens Fund. They spent over US$400,000 supporting Rep. Justin Amash, who opposed raising the debt ceiling, and is radical that he was thrown off the Congressional budget committee by his own party.
The far-right wing of the conservative faction is quite clear that the reason they hate moderate Republicans is because they compromise. In the course of the 2014 Senate primary in Nebraska, the Club for Growth spent US$257,000 attacking Sid Dinsdale for just that reason. The National Review, a conservative magazine, warned: "There's some past evidence to suggest that Dinsdale's willing to make a deal with the administration."
Oh, the horrors! They just might get something done!
"The Omaha World-Herald, endorsing Dinsdale, stated he was a "pragmatist" and saluted his willingness to reach out to the other side of the aisle," the National Review continued. "Yes, that's precisely what a lot of conservatives fear; sometimes no deal is better than a bad deal."
Many conservatives reflexively oppose any deal. In their apparent naive idealism, conservatives will oppose any deal that they don't view as being absolutely perfect.
This deal to keep the government running does a lot of things conservatives like: It repeals some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill that Republicans opposed; the school lunch standards that were loosened were always hated by conservatives; it cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, which conservatives think stifles business with its regulations; and it prevents the Gunnison sage grouse from being added to the Endangered Species List for at least a year.
All this might be considered a good compromise for conservatives, considering that Obama is a Democrat and, until the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2015, the Senate is still controlled by Democrats. It's not like the Democrats would ever pass a bill opposing Obama's illegal immigration plan.
But Tea Party conservatives fumed that the bill "funds amnesty" (NumbersUSA) and "gives Social Security benefits to illegal aliens" (Breitbart), when in fact the bill simply funds the government, and President Obama executes the "amnesty" actions with or without the bill. The bill doesn't contain any provisions preventing Obama from doing so. Not banning him from doing so isn't the same as endorsing his actions. They are arguing over something the bill doesn't contain, not over something it does.
These kinds of simple-minded, undeveloped, unrealistic arguments from the lowest common denominator of American politics should be ignored. In a rational world, the party leaders could get their members lined up and tell them how to vote without having them listen to people playing "dress up like it's 1776" and holding a misspelled sign. If a member doesn't take the position that is both best for his party and best for the country, the party could hold campaign funding over their heads, or they could have launched a campaign in the first place to prevent him from winning the party nomination. But with outside spending coming from extremist groups, members don't need to think about the party.
This reform isn't going to suddenly make politics a rich person's hobby. It already is. During the 2012 election, Sheldon Adelson gave US$93 million to super PACs and other political mechanisms. Six people gave 10 million or more dollars, and 38 gave more than 2 million. Millionaires and billionaires are allowed to give unconstrained to super PACs like Freedomworks and Club for Growth.
This reform simply gives the parties more power to fight back, and that will help politics function property for the best interests of the people.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/MitchellBlatt.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)