Free and Open Elections Are the Cornerstone to Any Democracy

Free and open elections are the cornerstone to any democracy. The citizens of the United States have fought for years to increase this right to everyone, but also keep each vote as strong as the next. However, it has become obvious to many that their voting power is being shortened each election cycle. Money and influence from powerful, wealthy interest groups and corporations have made their way into politicians’ coffers in the form of major campaign contributions. This system has resulted in voters calling for further campaign finance reform including more regulation of election funding and a higher level of transparency.
When it comes to financing presidential campaigns, an entirely new playbook is being written. The traditional yardstick, the money raised by individual candidates, may countless this time. Instead hundreds of millions of dollars may come from a relatively new political animal, the Super PAC. This financing vehicle sprang up in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, which wiped away limits on corporate and labor union campaign spending (1). Super PAC is a term to describe the new independent-expenditure-only committees that form to fund issues and specific canidates. Basically, the Citizens United decision said that labor unions and corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money independently of candidates to convince voters to vote for or against someone. There is a lot of money that can be raised and spent on independent advertising along with other things. A very important point is this can all be done without coordinating with the candidates (1). A candidate's ability to raise money on his or her own does still count for a lot.
Financial reports released this weekend show Texas Gov. Rick Perry outpacing his Republican rivals, hauling in more than $17 million for the third quarter. With $15 million in the bank, he put away half-a-million dollars more than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who pulled in $14 million during the same period 2). No other major GOP contenders raised as much. Ron Paul was next with more than $8 million, but the rest raised substantially less and also had far less cash on hand 2). As for the man they all hope to replace, President Obama brought in nearly $43 million last quarter. And by the end of September, the incumbent Democrat had $61 million in the bank, more than all the Republicans combined 2). Some of that will likely be spent responding to attack ads from the new super PACs, like this one from the conservative group American Crossroads airing in North Carolina and Virginia (2). In just the last three months, according to the filings, the Obama campaign has spent more on payroll, more than $4 million, than several of the Republican candidates have raised 3).
Fundraising in a post Citizen United world is characterized by a system of public secrecy and private disclosure 5). There are no current laws that prohibit any organization from spending large sums of money supporting a candidate and remaining private, while keeping the public in the dark. The most significant innovation is the rise of so-called Super Pacs, which can solicit unlimited contributions. These Super-Pacs would have happened without Citizens United. The organizational entrepreneurs that pioneered the Super Pac form, Speech Now, came up with this idea in 2007 and pursued this strategy long before Citizens United (1). A majority of the candidates campaigning in Iowa for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination are associated with at least one super PAC — one candidate had seven at last count 4). They are expected to pump hundreds of thousands — possibly millions — of dollars into political advertising leading up to Iowa’s Jan. 3 Republican Party caucuses and through other presidential primary contests continuing into next year 4).
Fundraising numbers are important because they help generate buzz and excitement, and because in politics, money makes more money. It is unclear what problem, increased corporate disclosure is designed to solve, and given the past track record of campaign finance reform, there is good reason to be skeptical that disclosure will improve the political process at all. Research shows that campaign finance reform typically fails at achieving its intended ends 4). To give just one example, “clean elections” laws, under which candidates receive government subsidies in exchange for forgoing private contributions, did not change politics in states like Maine and Arizona, and earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that the most popular version of these laws to be unconstitutional (1).
It has been said that to evaluate the political effects of Citizens United (CU) by itself is a fool’s errand. It was the latest (and not the last) in a series of libertarian campaign finance cases from the Roberts Court (1). Much of the alleged consequences of that case are activities (such as unlimited spending by corporations on candidate related ads that shied away from specific messages of endorsement) these ads were also legal the day before the Court decided that case. Though certain activities by corporations may have been allowed even before CU, the extent of the decision has made such activities more likely (1). These ads are now sanctioned as core First Amendment activity. This decision points the definition of corruption away from inconsistent access and toward bribery. This seems to remove the appearance of corruption as a compelling target of campaign finance reform (1). The Court’s post-CU decision in the Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett struck down a public campaign funding scheme that also showed the broader implications of this ruling. Those cases have will have consequences beyond campaign finance because they raise important questions as to how and when laws burden on speech (1). The firestorm of public criticism that followed CU was unique. Campaign finance decisions do not usually rise to a level where the public pays attention to such cases (let alone to have a case mentioned in a State of the Union address) (1).
One of the effects that the Citizens United decision had on politics worth mentioning is the almost flawless transition of “good government” groups from advocating for more direct limits on speech (1). Large, publicly traded corporations might be less likely to get involved in election financing than many people tend to assume – particularly if that involvement must be publicly disclosed (1). A recent study concludes that sixty percent of companies in the S & P 100 Index have already responded to CU by prohibiting spending corporate money on politics or disclosing their direct political spending (1). Such spending could alienate potential customers; it could also trigger a shareholder backlash. Privately-held companies or those controlled by a single shareholder, are probably more likely to engage in election spending.
On the other side, those who favor the status quo argue that tighter rules on these funds constitute a clear violation of First Amendment rights. The one good thing about this law is Justice Anthony Kennedy, reading from his majority opinion, emphasized that “Congress may not censor or regulate political speech, whether it is a person doing the talking or a corporation or union.” “At the core of the First Amendment,” Kennedy said, “and laws banning speech, infringe those basic constitutional protections.” Kennedy also pointed out that “under those laws,” “Congress also could diminish the voice of the media business if it chose.” “Government,” he said, “may not suppress political speech based on a speaker's identity” 7).
One group that supports Texas Governor Rick Perry, known as Make Us Great Again Inc., started the flow last week, buying nine days of advertising spots on local television to introduce the governor to Iowa Republicans 4). Des Moines television stations WHO, KCCI and WOI sold advertising slots that began Nov. 2 and ran through Friday for a combined $60,000 4). The Des Moines purchase was part of an overall $200,000 spent to air the 30-second spot in television markets across the stat. Meanwhile, the 9-9-9 Fund, a Super PAC aligned with former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, reported last week to the Federal Elections Commission that it had spent $5,000 for Internet advertising in Iowa and another $20,000 for contact calling to Iowa voters(4). And it isn’t just the Republican presidential candidates getting support from super PACs.
Priorities USA Action, a committee formed by supporters of President Barack Obama, raised $3.1 million in its first six months and has spent $1.3 million. That super PAC recently began airing advertising on the Internet that is highly critical of Mitt Romney (4). Super PACs have much more muscle than other types of political action committees they have unlimited money-raising potential. Presidential campaigns can raise no more than $5,000 from an individual donor — $2,500 each for the primary and general elections, under federal election rules (4). Super PACs don’t have such restrictions, allowing them to raise and spend significantly more money. Obama campaign officials say their goal is to raise a combined $60 million in contributions to the campaign and the Democratic National Committee (3).That figure will likely top all of the Republican candidates combined. While they are courting large donors, campaign officials also are hoping to show that Obama has the same kind of broad appeal he did in 2008, when a record four million people donated to his campaign. President Obama is using his early lead in campaign fund-raising to bankroll a grass-roots organization and information technology system that is critical in general election battlegrounds. He is doing so even as the Republican candidates conserve cash and jockey for position in what could become a drawn-out nominating battle(3). Since the beginning of the year, Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee, for which the president is helping raise money to finance his party’s grass-roots efforts, have spent close to $87 million in operating costs, according to a New York Times analysis of campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (3). That amount is about as much as all the current Republican candidates together have raised so far in this campaign.
In recent months, that money has helped open campaign offices in at least 15 states. In contrast, the best-financed Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, have physical presences in just a handful of early primary states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida (5). Mr. Obama has spent millions of dollars investing in social media and information technology, applying a savvy and brute technological force to raising small-dollar donations. This same system is also firing up volunteers and building an infrastructure to sustain his re-election campaign for the next year (5). Mr. Obama brings unmatched financial resources to the campaign trail, and a team that is knowledgeable of where and how to deploy money, people and technology. Though the Republican National Committee has enjoyed strong fund-raising in recent months, it is also still paying down large debts incurred during the 2008 cycle. At the end of September, the committee was still $14.5 million in debt, according to campaign reports (3). Independent spending on negative or positive advertising has proven effective in making some races more competitive. Traditional fundraising by political parties has helped develop the traditional grass-roots organizing essential to winning elections. The United States does not have the kind of disclosure system that would inform the public about exactly who provided for the ads, but existing law do require each sponsor of such ads to disclose how much was spent. The movement for more reform has taken a sudden and drastic turn back due to the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee ruling. This ruling has thrown decades of reform out the window, and opened the door for a flood of election money this country has not yet witnessed. Also, the lack of oversight into nonprofit organizations has hampered the transparency in elections. This decision will ultimately hurt the U.S. economy, allow greater corporate and non-profit political influence, and cause increased political indifference within an already weary general public (6). Because of corporate money funding campaigns, it is nearly impossible for an unknown to run in any major election. With all the money donated to front-runners, someone from the general public doesn’t stand a chance. In addition to the amount of money spent, it has become increasingly difficult to trace its origins due to non-profit organizations not having to disclose who their donors are. It is imperative that we as voters be informed.