Finally, a Congress that is viewed more negatively than root canals, lice, or even Nickelback, and rightly criticized for its paltry productivity, can finally begin to address those criticisms. In the past month, similar bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate: on February 5, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) introduced the Government By the People Act, and then eight days later Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il.) and 16 others announced the Fair Elections Now Act. Both pieces of legislation seek to address an issue that is crippling our political system: namely the grotesque amount of money that makes its way into current politics, corrupting both sides of the aisle (see Represent.Us’s “Coincidence or Corruption infographics”).
Lobbyists spent over $3 billion in 2013 alone to influence and sway the behavior of politicians to benefit their industries, organizations, and companies regardless of the effect on the rest of the population. Since politicians so desperately need cash to campaign and get reelected, they willingly accept money in exchange for political favors or pecuniary rewards. Although half Americans would support a new, 100 percent government-funded finance system for federal election and almost eight in 10 positively view limiting the amount of money Congressional candidates can raise and spend on campaigns, the constituents are not responsible for the decision. Ultimately, it is up to Congress to match the rhetoric with the reality, to finally impose necessary restrictions on fundraising that will give greater voice to the people and give democracy a better name. Despite the immense lobbying, pressure, and clout that will surely oppose both bills and seek to squash any prospect of passage, Congress should objectively view the reality of public opinion andsay, “Aye,” to institute a necessary policy that will begin to correct a glaring problem within today’s political system. Yet, many rightfully doubt that Congress will follow through.
The Fair Elections Now Act would finally allow candidates running for office to rely on the small contributions of their constituents. In order to qualify for Fair Elections funding, candidates must raise a large number of contributions that are limited to $100. A candidate for the House of Representatives needs to collect 1,500 contributions from people in their state and raise at least $50,000. A candidate for the Senate must raise a fixed number of small contributions amounting to 10 percent of the primary Fair Elections funding. According to the bill, the delineated number of contributions is equal to 2,000 plus 500 times the number of congressional districts in the given state. So, a candidate running in, say, Massachusetts, which has 9 districts, would have to raise 6,500 qualifying contributions.
Once qualified, candidates would receive Fair Elections funding in the primary, and provided they win, in the general election at whatever level is necessary to run “a competitive campaign.” The bill stipulates that qualified House candidates receive $1,125,000 in Fair Elections funding, where 40 percent is used for the primary and 60 percent is used for the general election. Qualified Senate candidates receive $1.25 million plus another $150,000 per congressional district in their state, where the money is distributed in the same manner as House candidates. Freed from the burden of constant fundraising, Senators and Representatives would no longer feel the urge to hobnob with lobbyists for donations from certain industries or organizations, pander to rich individuals for large contributions, or sacrifice their integrity and values for big money bundlers.
The Government By the People Act differs slightly, but it shares a common message: the election process must be revised. According to OpenSecrets, over $200 million has already been raised for the upcoming midterm elections in 2014 because the average winner spent $1,665,123 to obtain admission to the House and $10,295,337 for a seat in the Senate. Consequently, Congress spends way too much time trying to accumulate funds for re-election and far too little time actually legislating. In fact, the Huffington Post famously revealed that incoming freshmen Democrats are instructed to spend four hours everyday dialing for dollars – twice the amount of time spent in committee or on the floor. The injustice speaks for itself.
With Congress devoting a majority of each working day to phone calls and fundraising, less time can be spent actually governing. Senators and Representatives cannot foster meaningful relationships with each other, incredibly beneficial for compromise, because they are too busy listening to a dial tone. In order to create a more positive, trusting, and inclusive atmosphere in Washington, the phones must be hung up, the pandering to the elite donors must end, and the elected must interact on a daily basis.
Further, the emphasis on future elections prevents Congress from effectively dealing with the present. Once elected, every single member of Congress wants to maintain the status quo, which entails fundraising the day after the big night. The insidious cycle never ends, which ultimately hurts everyone except for the moneyed interests. Without proper reform, the voice of the people will consistently be silenced by money on the other side.
Yet just in case anyone still struggles to see the horror, Sen. Durbin reiterated the extent quite clearly in a release after the Fair Elections Now Act was introduced to the floor:
“Americans would be shocked if they knew how much time Members of Congress and candidates seeking office must spend dialing for dollars and attending fundraisers. Without a fundamental reform of the way we finance campaigns, we cannot bring real reform to Capitol Hill. This bill will give candidates the opportunity to focus on dealing with our nation’s problems, not on chasing after campaign cash.”
With Washington failing to progress on a variety of pressing national issues – immigration reform, healthcare, and social security to name a few – allowing both candidates and Congress to stop focusing so desperately on money is crucially important. If successful, these bills would loosen the forceful grasp of special interest groups, lobbyists, and bundlers on Washington’s politics while encouraging greater activity and participation in the democratic process by providing an impetus for candidates to truly reach out to all Americans. Before the champagne bottles come out and the celebrations in the name of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson begin, the future of both bills looks bleak and pessimistic.
First, despite the popular support campaign finance reform is quite difficult to pass. New York’s inability to secure the legislation demanded by almost three quarters of the population is a perfect example. The frightening, disheartening political reality continues to be dominated by lobbyists, special interests, and a quid pro quo culture. Powerful players enjoy the tremendous benefits for the system and work especially hard to ensure that the status quo prevails exemplified by the reaction to any public financing or campaign finance reform movement.
Second, radical change is antithetical of today’s Washington. Politicians seem comfortable with the current pay-to-play system, where they must woo wealthy donors and corporations to finance their campaigns in exchange for something in return, despite their espousing the opposite. Otherwise the 111th Congress, with over 200 members of the House and Senate either co-sponsoring or pledging support of Fair Elections, would have passed some sort of legislation. When the farm bill requires two years to get ratified, partisan gridlock and inability to compromise is at an all-time high. No wonder we just witnessed the least productive Congress in United States’ history.
Both bills require Congress to self-impose certain restrictions. While many might be skeptical that the current Congress is capable and motivated to pass such legislation, the dire times demand such drastic action. Now provides the opportunity for Congress to act upon an issue that plagues the institutional fabric of our country. People correctly claim that fixing campaign finance reform will help to resolve a plethora of other dilemmas in the United States. Lawrence Lessig, a Professor at the Harvard Law School and director of the organization Rootstrikers, constantly maintains that addressing the extent of money in politics strikes at the root of the problem in U.S. politics. Congress now has the opportunity to heed his words and tremendously improve the future prospects of governance.
Image Credits: Wikimedia, Bold Progressives
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.