David Donnelly

Special to The Courier-Journal

In a speech this summer, Sen. Mitch McConnell told a room of wealthy donors that our current campaign finance system is "the most free and open system we've had in modern times."

That depends on "free and open" for whom.

For almost all Kentuckians, the free and open system championed by their senior senator seems closed, corrupt and corrosive to the democratic process.

But for his audience that June day, the current campaign finance system provides countless ways to channel money to elect the politicians they believe will best carry out their agenda once they're in office. Sen. McConnell would surely say that the openness is not limited to the wealthy alone.

I am reminded of the famous Anatole France quote: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges." The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and subsequent lower court ruling, in a perversion of equality, has allowed the rich and poor alike to give as much money as they want to the super PAC of their choice.

Stanley Hubbard, a media mogul from Minnesota, recently told the Washington Post, "The average person can get their friends together and raise small donations that amount to big donations." Mr. Hubbard has already donated $191,000 to candidates this cycle. If an average Kentucky voter wanted to get her "friends together" to donate $191,000, it would take 7,640 of her friends each giving $25 to match that one wealthy donor.

This is not news, you're telling yourself. The wealthy have always had more influence. Well, you're right. But the deregulation of money in politics in recent years has led to a Wild West, everything-goes atmosphere, with three major impacts on voters.

• The first impact is that the system feels closed to many voters.

With a heavy reliance on large contributions and outside money to pay for campaigns (by candidates of both parties), regular voters feel as if they're an afterthought. It used to be common practice in Washington to assess candidate viability on whether they could self-finance their campaigns or were proven fundraisers. Now the recruitment of candidates includes whether they have wealthy friends, family members or business interests willing to set up a candidate-specific super PAC. Donations candidates are limited to $2,600 in the primary and general elections, contributions to super PACs are not. Whether a candidate has a proven record of attracting votes is just less important than ever before.

• The second impact is what all this money buys.

Voters are not stupid. The access and influence that comes with large contributions to politicians, parties and super PACs is not in question. Some, though, continue to argue that it doesn't matter. In fact, McConnell's own attorney, before the Supreme Court last year, argued that "gratitude and influence are not considered to be quid pro quo corruption." So gratitude shown how? Influence over what? This parsing of language may make sense in a courtroom, but in the court of public opinion, Americans have already made up their mind:

A poll conducted for our organization this summer found that 65 percent of voters in Senate battleground states believe the current system is wrong and leads to undue influence of the wealthy in politics and 73 percent support a constitutional amendment to address campaign spending and fundraising, with broad support across party lines.

• The third impact may be the most damaging of all. Coupled with feeling shut out and seeing politics work for the few, not the many, the coarsening of our politics through the excessive negative ads flooding our airwaves makes voters disgusted and less willing to participate in our democracy.

This is not an academic observation from the sidelines.

With some estimates placing the projected spending at $100 million in the Senate race between McConnell and Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky voters are right to feel as if they are living at ground zero.

In full disclosure, some of that spending — a relatively small fraction — will be from a super PAC I run, Every Voice Action, one with the ironic mission to reduce the influence of super PACs and campaign money.

According to a Center for Public Integrity report, independent groups have run over 21,000 ads, compared to under 16,000 for candidates and parties. And those groups aren't funded by regular people. Through June, just 81 people accounted for more than half of the $161 million given to super PACs this cycle.

A 2012 survey conducted for the Brennan Center for Justice at the height of the presidential election ad wars found one in four Americans said they are less likely to vote because big donors to super PACs have so much more influence over elected officials than average Americans.

What is happening in races all over the country, as well as in Kentucky, is that the candidates are relying on super PACs to run almost entirely negative campaigns. Every political operative will tell you that negative ads work to persuade likely but undecided voters to reject one candidate over another. But what they don't admit is that they do nothing to expand the number of voters who turnout on Election Day.

With little faith that government is working for everyday people, with feeling shut out from the political process because big donors call the shots, it's no wonder that only 50 percent, by most estimates, of eligible Kentucky voters will get out to the polls in November. No one can blame the other 50 percent for being cynical.

The national attention on the Kentucky Senate race provides a perfect opportunity to raise these issues. The system we have is largely one Sen. McConnell embraces. In fact he'd like to see unlimited contributions to candidates like himself, as well, not just to super PACs. Secretary of State Grimes has argued for a constitutional amendment to overturn recent court decisions.

If Kentucky voters send McConnell to retirement and Grimes to the Senate, they'll not just be rejecting a senator; they'll be sending a message that they want a political system in which every voice is heard.

David Donnelly is the president and CEO of Every Voice, an organization focused on winning campaigns and policies to transform our political system into one that represents everyday people, not big donors.