The Need for Campaign Finance Reform and Democratic Process Reform

For 224 years our democracy has endured. Yet it is in trouble today. It is threatened by the corrupting influence of big money and special interests.

The money from these special interests heavily influences public policy by Congress and everybody knows it. This practice costs us hundreds of billions of dollars collectively as citizens. It limits and defines our choices of candidates. It defers, misdirects, and blocks legislation to change our national priorities -- even when these changes are in the common interests of American citizens.

We must declare our independence from the corrupting effects of big money in our election campaigns by reforming our campaign finance system. We must alter our very system of government.  Our right to alter our government for the common good must be used to restore our government in service of our common interests as citizens. It is our duty to our children and to future generations of American citizens. 

Only Individual Citizens Have the Right to Vote

In our democracy, only individual citizens have the right to vote. Corporations and organizations have no right to vote in our democratic systems.

Individual citizens have the right to support candidates they agree with, and may send contributions of support - up to $1,000 in the primary and another $1000 in the general election - for candidates for federal office under current law. Once elected, our political leaders should work to enact legislation to benefit our common interests as citizens.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 96 percent of the American people don’t contribute a dime to any federal candidate or to the two major political parties, and a check of $1,000 comes from one-tenth of 1 percent of the public. Our politicians thus are selected and brought to us by the wealthiest, most powerful financial interests in the nation, which helps to explain why millions of Americans regard our elected public officials, our employees, as representing "them" more than "us."

Damaging Effect of Special Interest Contributions

Currently the TOTAL annual cost of ALL campaigns for federal office is approaching an average of about  $1 Billion dollars a year (more in a presidential year election cycle and less in the non-presidential election cycle).

Note: To view these overall campaign finance statistics in detail as presented on the Common Cause web site, click here.

Most of this $1 billion doesn't come from ordinary citizens in small contributions. Only a very small percentage of Americans can afford to give the maximum $1000 contributions. How many Vermonters in our northeast kingdom and throughout our state can afford to do so? 

Increasingly, political campaigns are financed with "bundled" maximum individual contributions, political action committee "PAC" money, and so called "soft money" from corporations and organizations that don't have the right to vote.  This money is heavily directed to incumbent members of Congress, or those deemed most likely to become elected. It is given across party lines to insure access to members of Congress and to insure that issues of concern to the special interest groups giving the big contributions are listened to and responded to by Congress.

Members of Congress want these big contributions. It gives them much more money than their challengers. Speech is speech, but money is the megaphone that amplifies speech. With more money for a bigger megaphone (to deliver their message more  broadly, and repeat it more often) they can drown out the speech of their challengers and perhaps your speech and the speech of millions of other Americans.

Corporations are prohibited by law from contributing directly to candidates. However, they ARE allowed under current law to contribute in whatever amounts they wish (for example: $300,000.00,  $500,000.00 or more) to political committees (like were set up for both Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani in New York) or parties who then may spend it in ways that benefit candidates or even redirect it back to individual candidates and members of Congress in large amounts (for example: $50,000 or $100,000 ). 

If candidates didn't know where this money originated, this might not have such adverse consequences, but there is plenty of evidence to show that they do.  Candidates also know that it's much more efficient to encourage contributions of money in these large amounts, than it is to receive contributions in much smaller amounts from individual contributors. Consequently, many candidates go to great lengths to encourage these large bundled individual contributions from special interests, PAC contributions, and "soft money" contributions from corporations and organizations. Candidates and corporate donors know that big contributions get noticed. Incumbent Congressional Representatives have tremendous financial incentive to please these special interests. This trend is resulting in legislation slanted toward special interests rather than our common interests as citizens. And it is costing citizens HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars.

Selected Examples

Broadcasters:  Broadcasters have given almost $5 million dollars in soft money to both political parties from 1991 through 1997. 

• Broadcasters won three provisions in 1997's budget and tax bill including a change in the Federal Communications Commission's rule governing the return of old analog TV licenses that could enable broadcasters to keep their licenses forever and cost the Federal Treasury BILLIONS of dollars that could be raised by auctioning off the old licenses. This came just after the industry won FREE digital TV licenses in 1996 which again cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars that could have been raised by auctioning off the new digital spectrum. The Federal Communications Commission estimates that not conducting this auction cost our federal treasury about $70 billion dollars. That's over $700 per American family we have to make up in our taxes.

Automobile, Iron & Steel:  The American automobile, iron and steel industries gave $5.7 million in political contributions from 1991 through June 1997, including more than $1.7 million in soft money donations to the political parties.

• For the past five years, Congress has failed to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, thereby sparing these special interests the burden of making cars and trucks more fuel efficient, which the industries fear might eat into their bottom lines. Supporters of higher CAFE standards claim that it is possible to produce safe, fuel-efficient cars that can save consumers money at the gas pump. Being deprived of this fuel efficiency costs consumers about $59 BILLION annually. 

Pharmaceuticals:   From 1991 through June 1997, the companies belonging to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the trade group for brand-name drug makers, gave a total of more than $18.6 million, (consisting of $10.2 million political action committee - PAC -  contributions, and $8.4 million in corporate soft money donations) to the political parties.  This is in addition to amounts of large individual contributions, both "bundled" and unbundled,  from executives many levels deep, employed in the many separate companies within the pharmaceutical industry. 

• With the help of that influence, brand-name drug companies have kept their profits healthy by successfully convincing Congress to let them hold on to their drug patents longer. Loss of access to generic drugs costs consumers as much as $550 million a year.

Note: These 3 examples above are selected and adapted from a long list of  24 examples posted on the website of Common Cause. To view the entire original list, click here.

Taken together, we all pay hundreds of billions of dollars for these and for other benefits conferred by Congress on these special interests. We pay part of this money out of our wallets at places like the pharmacy counter and at the gas pump. We pay more money from our checkbooks, for higher taxes to replace the money that never came into our federal treasury, due to Congressional subsidies and gifts to selected industries. 

The Need to Clean Up the System

I stand with those Americans who don't want a candidate making decisions on our national priorities  based on which interest groups will offer the largest contributions in the next election.  Increasingly, Americans understand that such alliances between candidates and interest groups can  defer, misdirect and block legislation  that is in the common interests of most Americans. 

An increasing number of corporate executives also understand and are concerned about the growing pressure for corporate "soft money" giving.  One clear sign of the growing dissatisfaction of corporate leaders with this pressure is the endorsement by more than 200 business and civic leaders of a campaign finance reform plan made by the Committee for Economic Development, a group of chief executives and academic leaders. 

Our democratic system is premised on the  involvement of its citizens. Cynicism and skepticism alienate Americans from the political process and undermine the respect, trust and knowledge that a healthy democracy requires. In order to reduce this cynicism and skepticism, we must clean up and repair the way our political system is financed by:

• Reducing the role of money in politics

• Leveling the candidate playing field, and

• Improving the democratic processes

We must replace campaign money from special interests with money on behalf of all citizens. We must provide our elected Congressional Representatives with proper incentives to again pass legislation on behalf of all citizens. We must broaden our choice of candidates to include those who are not independently wealthy or beholden to special interests. In sum, we must completely repair our democracy and restore faith and trust in our elected representatives and institutions of government.

The Solution

We must enact legislation that addresses all of the following three areas; we must prohibit soft money in federal elections, we must provide public financing for qualified candidates, and we must provide free broadcast time for qualified candidates in federal elections.

In our federal budget we now invest over $280 billion dollars annually in our military to protect our democracy from threats from abroad. With an investment in public financing of only $1billion dollars annually, (about $10 per family) we can protect our democracy from threats from within, and save an average American family as much as $500 - $1000. 

Why Partial Solutions Won't Work

Some argue that improved disclosure and a ban on soft money will solve this problem. We should be skeptical of some proposals.  The test for whether any proposed solution will fully solve the problem this should be this.  Will these measures alone, if our political system remains the same in other ways,  be sufficient to change the incentive Congress now has to please these special interest big money contributors. Will it stop Congress from passing legislation to benefit special interests rather than to benefit our common interests as citizens? Will it change the system enough to stop passing legislation costing citizens HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars?

Consider the pharmaceutical example above.  $18.6 million, (consisting of $10.2 million in PAC contributions and $8.4 million in corporate soft money donations) was contributed.  This does not count the amounts of large individual contributions, both "bundled" and unbundled,  from industry executives so the actual total of contributions is understated. 

If $8.4 million in soft money is prohibited in the above example, but $10.2 million plus all of the large individual contributions from pharmaceutical executives remains, have we really eliminated the incentive Congress now has to please the pharmaceutical industry and pass the legislation that costs citizens $550 million annually at the pharmacy counter?

If one examines this and the many other examples with this question in mind, I conclude and I believe that a majority of Americans also conclude, the answer is NO. 

Why Public Financing Makes Sense

Legislation slanted toward special interests rather than our common interests as citizens is currently costing citizens HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars (easily $500 - $1,000) per average family. The TOTAL annual cost of ALL campaigns for federal office is about $1 Billion dollars a year ($10 per average family).

Thus it is simply a good business decision for citizens to support comprehensive public financing of elections. By redirecting legislation toward our common interests as citizens, rather than toward special interests, CITIZENS ARE LIKELY TO SAVE  WELL OVER ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

Consider this issue in terms of our own family investments.  Suppose each year we can invest $1 dollar without unreasonable risk and  receive back $2 dollars. Each year we get our $1 original investment back plus another dollar, a 100% return on our investment. Most of us would consider this an outstanding investment. 

In our federal government the amounts are much larger but the underlying principle is the same.  The investment is $1 billion (about $10 per family). To achieve the same outstanding level of results we would need to save $2 billion (about $20 per family).  Amazingly, a 100% return of $20 per family is TINY, compared to the potential returns, which can be 50 TO 100 TIMES LARGER than this. 

Consider the single broadcasting example above that cost our federal treasury an estimated $70 billion dollars. That's an average cost of $700 per American family from this one example which could have been prevented by an investment of $1 billion, or $10 per family.   Said differently, the savings in this one example justify the ENTIRE annual $1 billion cost of public financing for some 70 years. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of savings.

Some will argue that the savings used in these and other examples are too large, or that an individual example was really in the public interest and should not be counted. Given the huge imbalance between the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars of potential savings and the 1 BILLION dollar annual cost of public financing, the savings from these and other examples can be reduced by half, or even three quarters and the logic still holds. Even if the savings were only 10% - 25% of the numbers used above, the investment of $1 billion on behalf of all citizens still produces an absolutely outstanding return that more than justifies its expenditure. 

The benefits for American citizens go well beyond the money saved.  Repairing our democracy and restoring faith and trust in our elected representatives and institutions of government provide priceless benefits to us and our children today and to future generations of American citizens.

Questions for this Election

So, given all this, why is our incumbent Senator so silent? Why don't we hear more about what the present system costs us as citizens? Why don't we hear more about why partial solutions won't save us a dime of the hundreds of billions of dollars the system now costs us? 

These are the questions we should be asking in the upcoming elections.