US Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court.

(AP File Photo)

By David Goodman

In two landmark decisions – Citizens United vs. FEC in 2010 and McCutcheon vs. FEC in 2014 – the Supreme Court changed the political landscape of the U.S. and, in the eyes of many, threatened our representative democracy. By narrow 5-4 majorities in both cases, the Court gutted the regulation of campaign spending limits.

Both decisions equated political money with free speech. The core of the Citizens United decision rested on removing spending limits from corporations and labor unions, now ruled as expressions of free speech, to influence political campaigns. In the wake of this decision, there was a virtual explosion of cash-rich special-interest groups, especially new Super PACs and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.

So-called “issue ads” became favorite tools of these unregulated groups that flooded elections, especially nominating primaries, with huge amounts of cash, often deciding who gets elected. Super PACs, such as Americans for Prosperity, have spent lavishly and run campaigns of distrust and disinformation and innuendo-based issue ads on TV and radio. The sole proviso is that none of the funds spent by the PACs can go directly to candidates or parties.

It didn’t stop there. Increasingly, donors of political money chose to avoid the spotlight of Super PACs for the cover and anonymity of the 501(c)(4) social welfare groups. They could spend bottomless amounts of “dark” money to buy political influence — all in secret!

Since 2010, spending by these tax-exempt organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending by Super PACs. Both liberal and conservative groups funneled huge amounts of cash into issue ads and other campaigns, with the dubious claim of being unconnected to the candidates they favor; without disclosing the names of their donors, and under the umbrella of tax exemption. Under current IRS rules, they can get away with it.

Then came the McCutcheon decision. Undeterred by these distortions to campaign financing resulting from Citizens United, the Supreme Court again changed the rules. This time, the justices removed most of the limitations on individual contributions. The same 5-4 majority decided that aggregate limits to federal campaigns by individuals are unconstitutional. The prior “aggregate contribution limit” was $123,200 over a two-year election cycle – more than twice the average income for an American household. Donors like Shaun McCutcheon, exercising their claim of First Amendment rights, have been unleashed. Under the new rules, the wealthy can contribute more than $3.6 million to party candidates and party committees, as well as virtually unlimited amounts to supportive PACs.

Politics and money always have been cozy together, but in this new unregulated era, the politics of money may well reign over the politics of the many. We face the prospect of government becoming a vehicle of the wealthy donor class. The inequalities of our economy, which we accept as necessary for capitalism, could become the standard of our democracy. Rather than “one person, one vote,” has our democracy become “how many votes can Big Money buy”?

There are two ways to fight this corruption – one through legislation, another through direct citizen contributions.

One courageous congressman, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), chose to embrace this fight by introducing the Government By the People Act of 2014 (HR 20).

The direct contribution approach is known as a “MayDay” PAC. Larry Lessig, a leading reform advocate, calls it the citizen “Super PAC to end all Super PACs.” Both HR 20 and the “MayDay” PAC emphasize small donors, but when multiplied by our numbers (the so-called 99 percent), our funds could rival the amounts spent by big donors (less than 1 percent) to purchase the government they want.

The Government By the People Act focuses on multiplying the power of small donations. Registered voters would qualify for “My Voice Vouchers” worth $50 in each federal election cycle as a tax credit. Everyday Americans would have their small-dollar contributions matched, 6 to 1, from public funds, if they give to a congressional candidate who foregoes outside Big Money and focuses on earning broad-based support from small-dollar donors. That could turn a $50 contribution into a $350 contribution.

The MayDay PAC (mayone.us) is a bold new experiment. Launched May 1, the first-round goal was to raise $1 million from ordinary Americans in one month. Nearly 13,000 individuals contributed more than $1 million in 13 days. That was matched, dollar-for-dollar, by a small group of millionaires — Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. Now, the goal is to raise $5 million by July 4. The PAC seeks to influence five congressional races in 2014 as a test. The bar will again be raised with bigger goals aimed at fundamental campaign reform in 2016. MayDay, a volunteer effort without lobbyists or consultants, seeks to make "government by the people" a national reality.

Let’s shine a light on dark money that corrupts our government and enable ordinary Americans to reclaim our democracy.

David Goodman, Ph.D., is a team leader for the New Jersey Congressional District 12 Committee of Represent.Us and a member of the Restore Democracy Work Group of the North Jersey Public Policy Network.

2 trchristie HINDASH.JPG

CONNECT WITH US: On mobile or desktop:

• Like Times of Trenton on Facebook

• Follow @TimesofTrenton on Twitter