 |
| Pictured: Every political candidate |
Citizen's United was a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2010. This ruling declared political donations to be considered political "speech", and held that corporations were protected speakers. In essence, limits on corporate political spending were equated to limits on an individual's right to free speech.
This ruling did affect the 2012 Presidential election, but its effects have become even more profound this year.
Super PACs
Steven Colbert did a great job explaining the problems associated with Citizens United, back when he ran for "President of the United States of South Carolina" in 2012. This video is a good summary of Colbert's work in this field:
This video emphasized the unlimited sums of money that Super PACs can raise. On its face, this seems strange. Why is an individual limited to donating only $2,700 directly to a federal candidate, and a PAC limited to donating only $5,000, while a Super PAC is unrestricted?
The answer is transparency, or at least the illusion of transparency. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, and they're prohibited from donating money directly to candidates. The Court's rationale was that this disclosure, and the isolation of funds, would preclude "corruption or the appearance of corruption." Sounds great.
Many Super PACs also registered as 501(c)(4) organizations, which were originally intended as "tax exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare." Colbert Super PAC Shh! was an example of a 501(c)(4). The distinction between this type of PAC and a regular Super PAC is that 501(c)(4)s do not need to disclose their donors. Citizen's United removed restrictions on 501(c)(4)s conducting political speech, thus creating a system where unlimited amounts of money, contributed secretly, can be used for political campaigns.
Fortunately, Americans have the Federal Election Commission to protect us from abuse of this system. The FEC describes their duties as the following:
To disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.
Guess what? There's a problem here too. The FEC is not a nonpartisan organization; it's a bipartisan organization. Its six-member board is legally prohibited from having more than three members of the same party. This forces three Democrats and three Republicans onto the Commission at all times, leading to frequent deadlock. The FEC ruled in a tie over 200 times between 2008 and 2014, meaning that it rarely actually "enforces any provisions of the law". This leaves campaigns able to break even today's lax rules, with virtually no chance of penalty.
Decisions Have Consequences
You can probably see the effects of Super PAC Proliferation today: tons of political advertising, a longer campaign season with more candidates than ever, an unprecedented political influence from the wealthiest Americans.
Rick Perry's campaign shows evidence of a less-expected outcome.
His traditional campaign is basically out of money, as he's failed to inspire any meaningful popular support for his candidacy this year. His Super PACs, meanwhile, have received huge donations from wealthy backers. The combination of low traditional donations plus high Super PAC donations yields the following chart, compiled by FiveThirtyEight:
Perry leads all major candidates in the % of fundraising contributed by Super PACs, and he's also spending more of his money than any other candidate. Normally, this would be a huge problem. Since candidates aren't allowed to coordinate with their Super PACs, there are certain functions which only the candidate's actual campaign can perform. This year, Perry's Super PACs have pledged to take over some of those duties for him. Illegal? Probably. Punishable? Not by the bipartisan FEC.
If Perry's PACs have been so successful raising money, why is his campaign's traditional fundraising ailing? Traditional fundraising is hard, because of the $2,700 donation cap. To raise millions of dollars, you need thousands of donors willing to contribute the maximum amount. It takes effort and organization to marshal that sort of funding. Super PACs just require some wealthy backers with special interests.
Perry's campaign is probably doomed anyway, but it will be interesting to see what happens until it all ends. He wasn't impressive in the Kids' Table debate, and his campaign has stopped paying its staff. I hope his Super PACs really cross the line, if only to catalyze change in our campaign finance laws.
Catalyzing Change in Our Campaign Finance Laws
That brings us to Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Professor who promises to run for President if he can raise $1 million by Labor Day. Unlike everyone else in the race, Lessig is running as a "referendum candidate". He promises to push an agenda solely of campaign finance reform, and then resign once that's completed. This is probably unrealistic - he'd still need Congress to create the bill and vote for it, and they'll have no real motivation to do this - but it's an exciting idea. Lessig argues that the influence of money has broken our political system, and radical change is the only fix.
Does his argument interest you? 2016 is already showing us the absurdities of a fully-realized, post-Citizens United world. Maybe an absurd candidacy, from an outsider with a single goal, is the antidote?
No comments:
Post a Comment