I wrote this column before the Supreme Court famously held that corporations are people in the Citizens United v. the FEC case.  Since that ignominious decision more money has been poured into efforts to influence voting than at any time in our history.  Rep. Dennis Kucinich has proposed a constitutional amendment that would do many of the things that I have advocated here.

The Time is Now: Campaign Finance Reform

Reprise

In a democracy the people usually get the kind of government they ask for.

Alexis DeTocqueville

At this very moment there is a case before the Supreme Court that could have profound consequences for the future of political campaigns and the response of legislators to their constituents. The plaintiff wants the Court to declare that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to free speech, the other side wants the court to let the status quo stand. Each side has famous trial attorneys and the questions from the Justices seem to indicate a leaning to the plaintiff. However, it is dangerous to try to second guess the court and they may decide on very narrow grounds that will have little overarching effect.

At issue is a film that was made during the primary campaigns last year entitled "Hillary." It was designed to be an uncomplimentary look at Hillary Clinton and meant to be used as campaign material. It was funded in part by corporate donations and under current law corporations may form PACs to influence campaigns they may not directly contribute corporate money to campaigns. It bears mentioning here that these laws apply equally to unions lest anyone find reason to label this a conservative vs. liberal conflict.

Corporations have enjoyed a protection from legal proceedings equal to that provided to individuals. What the plaintiffs want is for the corporation to have the same rights to participate in elections as individuals. Since the court has held previously that money equals free speech then corporations should be allowed to use corporate money to influence elections. The defendant says that corporations are made up of many individuals and that they were not given equal rights in this instance by the Constitution. Also, in many cases they are multi-national and do not have the best interests of the republic at heart but rather serve the interests of the stockholders. As far as I am concerned the court went too far when it equated money and free speech making difficult any kind of campaign finance reform. It is inane to assert that a corporation with vast funds at its disposal would not have any more influence on a legislator than a single voter.

A local businessman turned me on to a book by Richard Kaiser, an editor with the Washington Post, called "So Damn Much Money" that deals with lobbying in Washington, D.C. This is the rot that deprives the People of the affection of their government and both parties are guilty. The allowing of corporations to directly contribute stockholder funds will only further erode the influence of the individual voter.

So, what do we do about it? I have a few ideas but they have some problems.

One of the problems is that we do not have national elections. We have 50 smaller elections that are run by the states. This was set up early in the republic’s history because we wanted to keep government responsive to the locals and distances were so great. With communication primitive it was difficult to deal with elections over distances. That is no longer a problem and in this population of such diverse immensity but excellent communication it is a cumbersome way to elect representatives. We deal with 50 individual systems and schedules for choosing candidates, which increases costs and contributes to the never-ending campaign cycle. People hate it, broadcasters love it.

The process for holding elections is built into the Constitution so any change would likely involve Constitutional Amendment, an intentionally difficult process. But let’s say the Nation has a compelling interest in limiting the influence of money in the political process and assuring that the playing field is level for all citizens.

First: Nationalize the elections. Rather than 50 state elections lets have a national election.

Secondly: Prohibit private funding of campaigns and fund all campaigns for President, Senators and Representatives from public funds. Spare me the cries of "welfare for politicians". That is what we have now.

Thirdly: Prohibit television advertising. Limit television and radio time to debate format only, open to all candidates who meet certain conditions. All networks would be required to carry the debates; the airwaves belong to the people after all. Allow all the public speeches, picnics, etc. any candidate can get together without private funding.

Fourthly: apply the same restrictions to print publications. News stories would not be restricted but it must be news.

The press will howl, lobbyists will sue and those who could not get elected without the huge amounts of money will whine but removing the money from the electoral process is the only way to return the people we elect to the people. Wouldn’t you like your interests to be worth as much as some big money contributor to your President, Senator, Representative?

Draconian measures? Yes. Violation of the First Amendment? Maybe. Consider though that we restrict the free speech of some other entities when it is in the public good. Is this in the public good? I think it is very much so. Again, it probably will take Constitutional amendment but is a representative republic worth it?

There are some holes in this proposal but let’s talk.

That's my take. I want to know yours.

rmoore@somerset-kentucky.com