Campaign Finance Reform

I talked a little bit about money in politics a while back, and I mentioned my thought that there is a point of diminishing returns with money in elections, nationally and locally. I am supported in this by Jonathon Soros, whose family knows a little bit about political spending.

It appears that without money, you can't win an election, but after a certain point it doesn't actually help get your voters out, eventually you have saturated all advertising options, your candidate can't pack another rally into his schedule, and voters are starting to get annoyed seeing names on every billboard.

Citizens United was a pretty terrible decision, but the consequences re: campaign spending ended up being not so different than before, big money donors used to spend a ton cash on elections just as they do now, what it did was just make it easier for rich organizations to give, and made the whole process, less transparent, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at but didn't exactly put elections in the pockets of the rich... they were already there.

The problem as I understand it, and my knowledge is limited as I don't speak legalese, is that donations through SuperPACs are not public knowledge by default, while the candidates and their organizations almost certainly become aware of who they owe, unless that information is leaked or otherwise made public, we don't get to find out very easily. And while I don't think big money in  politics is new or even as harmful as we think, it is still harmful to democracy, and the current system means we elect people to powerful positions, we know they owe favors, but we don't know to who, yet the average voter is still supposed to pick the person who will do their best for the country.

I pick on the Republicans a lot so I will instead talk about a Democrat for an example, Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for something in the neighborhood of thirty years now, we know almost literally everything about her past affiliations, personal life, and political leanings, we know everything she has ever done with a hint of scandal, but we don't know who her SuperPACs get money from, not entirely, which means we don't actually know what her policy priorities might actually end up being if(when) she is elected. It's kind of important in my view.

Scott Walker is a presidential candidate, he is among the worst examples of humanity the Republicans have to offer, and he is deeply in the pocket of notorious conservative billionaires the Koch brothers, we know who he owes money to, and if his poll numbers are anything to go by, even the Republican base don't want someone like that in power, it helps that everything he says is appalling, stupid, or both, and that he looks like someone melted Howard Dean a little, but the point remains.

Everyone knows where Donald Trump gets his money, he won't let you forget about it, but he fact that he has managed to convince the base that he doesn't owe anyone anything has gone a long way towards his popularity this summer.

Bernie Sanders is the same way, he has refused SuperPAC and large donor money quite publicly,  relying on donations from individuals and businesses under the 2700 dollar limit that restricts contributions from us regular people. He also is pretty popular these days despite his limited exposure.

Money is not the only problem in politics, and big money doesn't buy elections, but it does seem to buy politicians, and not knowing who owns our politicians means we don't really know our elected leaders at all.

Solutions are hard to come by, overturning Citizens United would be a feel good measure, but it will simply force those who want anonymity to try harder to keep it, and money will still flow. This wouldn't be a problem if all candidates had the same ability to generate funds though, it seems like it will be unlikely to accomplish this by reducing the money involved, but it may be possible to overhaul it a bit and increase the amount of cash available through a federal program, it would require the mostly useless Federal Election Commission to be actually given some teeth and authority, as well as a new board structure that didn't mean a split on party lines got nothing done. But even something as simple as an overhauled system for Federal matching funds for donations might make a difference.

Campaign finance reform is one of those issues that puts people to sleep when it comes up, and this post may do the same to some of you who read it, lord knows I am yawning, but it is still important for all that, your vote counts, not for much maybe, but it does, and it only can be used properly if we know what it is being used on.