Influence Imbalance in our Democratic Society

FACTS:

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC and a lower court’s decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC “arguably represent the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades,” according to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report.

The report notes the following changes, and the rules that remain in place, that are shaping the 2012 election landscape:

1. “As a consequence of Citizens United, corporations and unions are now free to use their treasury funds to air political advertisements explicitly calling for election or defeat of federal or state candidates (independent expenditures) or advertisements that refer to those candidates during pre-election periods, but do not necessarily explicitly call for their election or defeat (electioneering communications). Previously, such advertising would generally have had to be financed through voluntary contributions raised by PACs affiliated with unions or corporations";
2. The 2010 U.S. Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org means that “contributions to PACs (Political Action Committees) that make only independent expenditures—but not contributions—could not be constitutionally limited. As a result, these entities, commonly called super PACs, may accept previously prohibited amounts and sources of funds, including large corporate, union, or individual contributions used to advocate for election or defeat of federal candidates";

MY POST:

It is widely known that campaigns for office cost a lot of money however the exact figures are unknown because the current laws do not require full disclosure. Nonetheless, millions of dollars are spent on advertising, consultants, logistics including transportation, office space, staff salaries and the list goes on. Spending this money, however, is understandable given that an integral part of electing a person to office is being aware of who that person is and what it is they stand for. And that costs money.

Campaign funding comes from people, political action committees, unions and corporations. In principal it is not wrong for these groups to give money to a campaign. In fact, that is healthy – it allows the campaign to run which contributes to the proper functioning of the political system. The problem lies in the relationships that are created as a result of the reliance on direct or indirect funding from organized entities. When organizations, namely corporations, unions and political action committees, are able to directly or indirectly fund campaigns, pools of money become available to campaigns.This creates relationships of mutual interest - “I rub your back if you'll rub mine”. Such relationships force campaigns and politicians to yield to the demands of the organizations putting up the money. Otherwise their campaign will not have sufficient funding, the result of which is a less influential campaign or a bankrupt and failed campaign. By allowing political campaigns access to these pools of money and therefore the creation of these relationships, the democratic balance of influence is disturbed. In a true democracy not only should votes be equal (one person = one vote) but influence should as well. Allowing organizations, i.e. pools of money, to fund campaigns, disrupts the equality and balance of influence in the democratic society.

PROBLEM: influence imbalance in democratic society
ROOT CAUSE OF PROBLEM: organizations directly and indirectly financing political campaigns

SOLUTION: ? - let's discuss.

My solution would be to:

1. bar organizations from directly and indirectly financing campaigns.
2. Create a structured election format paid for by tax payers.
3. Institute a system where after receiving a certain number of signatures, a person is able to submit a 'request to run for office' at which time the signatures are authentically verified by an independent governing body. Once approved they then become entitled to participate in the structured election format – a format that includes a series of debates, presentations, discussions etc.
4. Allow each person, not entity, over the age of 18 to contribute a maximum of $1000 to a single campaign.