Jim Allard had one thing right when he wrote in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC: the majority had every reason to rule in favor of the plaintiff on First Amendment grounds. Although it’s physically painful for me to admit it, I’ve found myself begrudgingly accepting of the fact that the decision was constitutional, in spite of its putative potential to further debilitate our already maladjusted democracy.
There are many people on this campus and around the country who immediately recognized the potential political Armageddon the decision could foment, namely, complete corporate domination over our political process at every level. Oh, but wait, that has already happened! Indeed, it’s probably true that the total catastrophe many observers have predicted in Citizens United’s aftermath is already the status quo. Now, it’s possible that elections might very well become even more beholden to corporate overlords — further disenfranchising the individual, 95th percentile voter — but it really is tough to imagine things getting much worse, at least as a result of this decision.
In our moribund democracy, one of the few virtues still intact and functioning is our right to free speech. It’s perhaps more important to defend that right at uncomfortable, dyspeptic times like these than at any other. So, the idea that “money is speech” (not property) is hard to swallow in this context, of course, but can one honestly believe the constitution would allow laws that restricted the use of money to advocate for or against any act of congress or allowed advocacy for any political candidate as long as money wasn’t spent? If money were property, it would be perfectly constitutional to restrict the use of PA systems and megaphones at demonstrations, since those items are property and, under previous interpretations, would be as impermissible as money.
Those whom the decision has upset already realize the tremendous gravity of the problem: The dominance of minority, moneyed interests over our electoral process. With that in focus, the only real solution that doesn’t constrain the First Amendment would be to institute a strong system of public financing for political campaigns.
Election cycles — especially in light of the recent and unprecedented phenomenon of the two-year presidential campaign — could use a contraction, one that would be facilitated by the more modest funds provided from the public coffer. There is no reason not to cut these national epics down to a quarter of their current size. After all, few substantive issues are discussed over the campaign’s marathon course — at any rate, it’s certainly not more than could be adequately debated and fleshed out in a few months before Election Day.
By excising the influence of a few dozen major donors, candidates would be forced to campaign on ideas and not rely on slick campaign ads or grossly outspending their opponent. Third party “swift-boating” would still be an issue, but with a sizable enough public pot it could be effectively marginalized.
While effecting changes like these on the federal level will undoubtedly take some time, they should still take priority for democracy advocates. In the meantime, action on the local level and here in Wisconsin might give reform proponents the experiential firepower to succeed in D.C.
A recent article in The Capital Times (“‘Local Lab’ for Public Financing,” Jan. 31) depicted the sort of legislative changes that localities would need to effectively institute voter-owned campaigns. Aside from allowing individual districts to write up their own particular guidelines, such a system, currently being considered in the Assembly, would help level the playing field for groups most underrepresented in elected government — i.e women and people of color.
The data tend to support these prognostications: While more women have been running in areas where public financing has been implemented, their success in elections remains stagnant. It’s not that the reforms aren’t effective at improving representative diversity; the increase in participation alone shows public-financing reforms steer elections in a more democratic direction.
Recent changes to the way Supreme Court elections are held in this state provide a reasonable template for how a broader public financing system might work. Of course, electing Supreme Court judges is an incredibly myopic and disastrous means of constituting a judicial system, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Predictably, influential groups like the Wisconsin Realtors Association are already balking, expressing thinly veiled fears that their ability to buy off local officials for favorable development decisions might be severely compromised. Now is as good a time as ever for voters to demand electoral egalitarianism and expunge oligarchic influences.
Still, it’s never easy to stay true to one’s principles, especially for those on the left, for whom the years have persistently exemplified the steam-rolled Otto at the end of “A Fish Called Wanda.” Without fail, judicial activism shocks and bewilders those on the losing end, but, after the court is adjourned, it’s incumbent on the real democrats to adapt and in this case pursue a constitutionally sound solution that gets to the root of the problem.
Sam Stevenson ([email protected]) is a graduate student in public health.
