Angela Carella: Small step forward in ridding politics of Big Money

The Senate Thursday killed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have allowed Congress to restrict spending on political campaigns by wealthy interests seeking to influence elections.

But grassroots groups that support measures to curb Big Money in politics say it is a victory, because senators spent a week debating the amendment and 54 of them voted for it, six short of the number needed for it to advance.

The U.S. Senate, the groups say, is listening to the people.

Such groups have been rallying to counter the influence of billionaires who contribute millions of dollars to back certain candidates and attack others, paying for tens of thousands of political commercials in a campaign season.

Though wealth has always had weight in politics, the opportunity to exert influence increased significantly after two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 and McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014.

The rulings opened the floodgates for corporations, unions, "social welfare" organizations and individuals to throw money at political candidates, reversing a century of laws governing how campaigns are funded.

Amendments similar to the one that just failed were submitted to the Senate in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, but Thursday's 54 votes is the highest number to date, said John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People, a national nonpartisan group that works to challenge the misuse of corporate influence and restore democracy to the people.

"This is a huge milestone for the growing grassroots movement to reclaim our democracy. It shows the power of the people," Bonifaz said. "It is a testament to all the work done in states and cities and towns around the country."

So far 16 states, including Connecticut, and more than 550 cities and towns, including Stamford, have called on Congress to amend the Constitution as a way to overturn the Supreme Court rulings, Bonifaz said.

Thursday's vote, though it fell short, was "a historic step forward," said Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a national nonpartisan group working to change campaign finance laws.

"One of the most significant things about it is that, in an election year, a majority of elected officials decided to put this on their agenda," Nyhart said. "It means they are conscious of voters. If they believed voters were not interested, they wouldn't have had a vote on it. We've known for a long time that the public is interested in this, but to have that validated by sitting senators is worthy of note."

In states such as Montana and Colorado, that put the amendment question on ballots, 75 percent of voters were in favor, Bonifaz said.

"We find that it's an issue that interests people across the political spectrum, Democrats, Republicans and independents," Bonifaz said. "It's true despite the inside-Washington partisanship."

Thursday's Senate vote, for example, was divided along party lines -- all Democrats and independents were for it and all Republicans were against it.

The effort to amend the Constitution is long and complicated. It requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.

But the Constitution already was amended 27 times. Seven amendments -- including one that abolished slavery and one that allowed women to vote -- overturned Supreme Court rulings.

Citizens United should be another, Bonifaz said. In it, justices ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, and so cannot be restricted in their donations to political candidates. They ruled that if corporations and other interests give money to a candidate's political action committee, they are not bound by laws governing campaign contributions, and so may donate unlimited amounts.

Worse, if wealthy interests create a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization, they may not only donate unlimited amounts, they don't have to disclose it.

Since then, hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called "dark money" have flowed into political campaigns. It offers corporations and wealthy individuals unprecedented opportunity to surreptitiously influence candidates and, if their candidates win, influence public policy.

"No one has the right to drown out anyone else's speech, which is what is happening with the Big Money-dominated system we have now," Bonifaz said.

Republicans who oppose a constitutional amendment on campaign financing say it would violate the right to free political speech, which is so important that it must extend to corporations and similar entities.

But an amendment would protect the political speech of those who now are not heard, Bonifaz said.

"The beneficiaries of the current system are incumbents," he said. "Unlimited campaign spending favors them. It allows them to build huge war chests. Then they cater to the interests that filled their chests. There is nothing about the current system that encourages competition. If anything, it entrenches power. If we limit spending, we create more competition and debate in the political process."

The influence of the wealthy is increasing, Nyhart said. In the 1980s, 1 percent of the top 1 percent of richest Americans were responsible for about 15 percent of political donations. Today it's 40 percent, he said.

The country is reacting to that.

"People want their voice to matter," Nyhart said. "They want their voice to be heard without regard to how big a check they can write. Americans understand that Big Money has influence over politics in a way that they do not. They don't want Big Money to have power and ordinary people to not have power. They just don't think they can do anything. The hard part about this is understanding that we can change it -- believing that change is possible."

The good news about "these bad court decisions," Nyhart said, "is that groups fighting it see an uptake in grassroots involvement afterward. Every billion dollars that goes into politics will bring more people fighting for change."

There is a long way to go, but this is how the Constitution changes, Nyhart said. "Billions of dollars in political money flowing around inevitably leads to scandal," he said, and scandal can spur people to act.

Americans get it, Bonifaz said.

"The reason is that we have a common vision of government of, by and for the people," Bonifaz said.

angela.carella@scni.com; 203-964-2296; stamfordadvocate.com/angelacarella