The disastrous Supreme Court Case Citizens United has ballooned campaign spending in our country past already ludicrous levels. Corporations have been freed from restrictions in many areas of campaign finance; therefore, Super PACs and record amounts of cash have become the norm. Campaigns are often reduced to competing wars of attrition fought through expensive TV and internet ads that trade in hyperbole, distortion, and even lies. Often, groups from outside a contested area spend heavily to influence elections from Congress all the way down to school board. The Koch brothers and other notoriously shadowy groups have enacted long-term strategies carefully designed to take over, for example, state legislatures. North Carolina is a prime example, as the Kochs and their home-grown analogue Art Pope, along with powerful interests in agriculture, firearms, and other sectors, pump millions into the war chests of politicians, or affiliated PACs. The Republicans are now infamously reaping the rewards of this strategy, enjoying a veto-proof majority in both houses of the legislature. However, it would be a mistake to attribute all of the corrosive effects of money in politics to the Grand Old Party alone. Democrats take plenty of money, and much of it leaves many of them beholden to represent those interests--and not those of their constituents--as they craft public policy and law.
Bernie Sanders famously spurned all corporate donations during his historic run at the Democratic nomination in 2016. He relied on personal donations, usually small, sometimes repeated by the same people. Campaign finance reform does not have to be complicated, but in this country, there is little incentive to get the money out. How many potential candidates or incumbents would risk a steady flow of money? Bernie had the bully pulpit of the Senate from which to launch his campaign. Other countries use public financing; many others are flat-out corrupt. In my estimation, we are teetering toward the latter, and I am proposing that candidates willingly and publicly forgo corporate donations. There are plenty of non-profits and trade groups that make donations and endorsements, and any candidate worth winning does the due diligence of speaking, writing, meeting, and listening to prospective constituents. Successful, worthy candidates will be people who are already recognized in their communities as leaders, people who have passion, clear ideas, energy, and a track record of getting things done.
We need an immediate and full accounting about the sources of all elected officials’ and candidates’ funding. I call for the immediate release of these records by officials and candidates themselves, in easy-to-read online resources. I expect these records to be up-to-date, transparent, and searchable. I demand explanations from candidates about why they take donations from particular entities, and how this money might affect legislative or other outcomes. Are my officials’ votes being bought? Are there sectors from which they won’t receive money? As an activist, I work very hard fighting legislation I consider to be contrary to my values, and usually my values as a Democrat. It is demoralizing to lose a fight not due to lawmakers’ ideology or passion, but to the interests of those who fund them. I didn’t vote for the pork industry, for example, and I’m pretty sure the legislature wasn’t designed to represent them. But so it is. The notorious hog waste bill passed the North Carolina legislature, even though it literally allows big hog producers to blow shit on mostly poor neighbors without even the chance of legal recompense beyond the negligible value of neighbors’ real estate. Of course, these same companies, many of them foreign-owned, donated heavily to the same lawmakers who voted for this bill.
Parties, particularly at the national and state level, want to channel most of their financial resources to those races that are the most imminently flippable. From a short-term strategy standpoint, this makes sense: there is no reason to throw good money after bad in clearly losing efforts. However, in the long run, neglected areas left to rot because they are supposedly unwinnable become even more atrophied. In many districts, candidates from one or the other party run unopposed, often for multiple terms. The unequal distribution of campaign resources from within parties further demoralizes Democrats in red districts who often feel that the party has given up on them. This may be one factor contributing to the rise of unaffiliated voters in our state. Raleigh, as the state capitol, is clearly the political center, but that often leaves other municipalities out of the decision-making process, if often due to lack of proximity. An email is not the same as a lunch meeting, despite the amazing capability of online tools such as social media and shared workspaces. To remedy, or at least make transparent this aspect of campaigns, I call on parties and candidates to disclose the sources and amounts of funding from within the party. Resources must be allocated, but it would be beneficial to the voters and party members to have a full accounting of the process and to be able to contribute opinions.
As a precinct vice-chair and as a member of the Democratic Party State Executive Committee, I will of course support all Democrats who win primaries in their respective races. In this capacity, I will do everything I can to assure victory for my party. However, as a private citizen, I will only support those candidates who both publicly renounce corporate funding and who give a full and up-to-date accounting of all of their finances, in easily accessible forms. I reserve the right to talk about these issues, write about them, and inquire openly in public meetings, on social media, and in print, video, or television. I take my First Amendment rights seriously. In my capacity as an individual--not as an employee, partisan, or board member--I will continue to fully and openly express my opinions.
Comments
Post a Comment