Campaign
Finance Reform:
A Call for Clean Elections
Why
should we care how government is run, or who runs it, as long as it functions
at an acceptable level of efficiency and justice? When St. Paul wrote, as we
read in Romans 13:1, “let every person be subject to the governing
authorities,” he had in mind the brutal and oppressive Roman Empire. As Paul
well knew, this same Empire had cruelly crucified Jesus, his Lord and ours. Yet
Paul continues, in the same verse,
“those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” These same
authorities would later execute Paul, and continue, for nearly three hundred
years, to eradicate Christianity as brutally as it could.
Christianity
eventually became the official religion of the Empire, after the Emperor
Constantine converted in the Fourth Century. Christianity necessarily converted
from a religion persecuted by governing authorities to a religion of the
governing authorities. As the Roman Empire crumbled, feudalism rose, which
cemented social stratification. Christianity used Romans 13 to buttress the
governance by and for the privileged, and cooperated in the enforcement of the
status quo. Royalty believed they governed by Divine sanction, and the Church
reinforced this view. Reality was believed to be organized in a hierarchical
“great chain of being,” in which royalty ruled over peasantry just as the
latter ruled over animals.
The
weight of the great chain began to break itself apart under the Renaissance and
Reformation. The dawn of the Modern Era, some 350 years ago, finally buried the
chain. Today, what most of us take for granted as fundamental to just society
would have been unthinkable in the middle ages. We take for granted that
government is legitimized by the consent of the governed, and that individuals
have basic human rights. Equality is a norm endorsed, in one form or another,
by nearly every major political persuasion in America. Yet these ideals grow
from the historically recent past. They grow from a reaction against the
dominance of the Church. They are the result of the successful effort to
replace the authority of religion with the authority of reason. Thus was the
modern era born.
Although
mainline Christianity has long since accommodated itself to the modern era, it
has not expressed concern about the fact that the governing authorities have
largely concerned themselves with the maintenance of privilege. Voices which
highlight the structural injustice of this, notably the liberation theologians,
generally speak at the margins of the Church.
The
historical indifference of the Church toward who runs government challenges us
as we observe the political landscape of today. We live in a democracy, but it
is a controlled democracy, dominated by the financially privileged.
As
Walter Wink has pointed out, “Never has so much money been funneled to so many
candidates for office by so many special interests. And while it is probably true that many a legislator would have
voted no differently had he or she not received a gargantuan heap of money from
a private donor or a PAC (Political Action Committee), the fact is that the
whole process becomes tainted when contributions and voting records correlate
to such an astounding degree.”
Democracy
requires meaningful access to power for whomever wishes to be heard. To be
sure, legislators listen to their
constituents. Letters from the District are read and oftentimes heeded. However, the influence of money distorts the
foundational process.
Perhaps
the most famous example of such distortion was the Clinton Administration’s
health care debacle of 1994. Poll after poll, and focus group after focus
group, had demonstrated that, once options were explained to them, 60% of Americans favored a Canadian style
health coverage model. This percentage held regardless of demographics or party
affiliation. Meanwhile, the health insurance industry, which would have been
decimated under a Canadian style system, contributed heavily to the
Presidential and Congressional campaigns of 1992.
The
eventual Clinton plan heavily favored the largest insurance companies at the
expense of the smaller companies, who responded with their infamous “Harry and
Louise” commercials. I attended a White House religious leader’s briefing in
April of 1994, led by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Presidential Advisor Harold
Ices. We were being encouraged to help the White House “sell” the Clinton Plan,
which by then was in deep trouble. Several leaders stated their preference for
the general Canadian style approach, and asked why the White House did not
consider that instead. Mr. Ickes responded that “although the Canadian approach
has great merit, it is politically undoable at this time.” (Not surprisingly,
the religious leaders did not go on to try to “sell” the Clinton plan).
Why,
indeed, would a program supported by 60% of the American people be “politically
undoable,” unless the power of special interests distorted the political
landscape?
Citizen
Action of New York spells out what the distortion implies for the electoral
process:
--large
contributions hinder equal and meaningful participation in the democratic process;
--the
free-speech rights of non-wealthy voters and candidates are drowned out by
those who can afford to monopolize paid political ads;
--the
First Amendment rights of voters to be heard in the political process, question
candidates, and engage in debate is denied to the vast majority of citizens;
--big
money fuels the public perception that government and its leaders are corrupt, an impression that is sometimes correct;
--elected
officials are required to spend a disproportionate amount of time raising money, which diminishes their presence and
accountability to their constituency;
--qualified
candidates without personal fortunes or access
to large contributors have scant chance to mount competitive campaigns;
--challengers
are disadvantaged, because large campaign
contributors tend to give their money to incumbents;
--there
are too many loopholes in existing law that big money can slip through;
--the
rich have greater representation than the rest of us because political power is
allocated according to economic status.
As
Wink further observes, “in the 1995-96 election, business interests outspent
labor by 12-1. Individuals and PACs
representing the natural resource industries (such as gas and oil companies)
outspent environmental interests by an estimated 27-1. In the elections from 1988-92, the oil and
gas industry alone gave a total of $17.2 million to congressional
campaigns. Is anyone surprised that
industrial pollution is growing worse instead of better? As Amitai Etzioni commented, ‘If the
founding fathers had wanted American democracy to use dollar bills as ballots,
they would have placed cash registers where ballot boxes now stand.’ ”
The
situation effectively disenfranchises people of color. In its recent
study, “The Color of Money,” Public
Campaign concluded that “people of color are largely absent from what has
become one of the most crucial elements of the election process, namely,
campaign financing. . . There are some 2,500 zip codes with more than 50
percent people of color and a total population of 41 million. In those areas,
we determined that only 8 out of every 10,000 people are political players,
i.e., gives a contribution of $200 or more. Compare that to the 26 top-giving
zips, where more than 4 in 100 give a contribution.”
Public
Campaign points out that the results of non-contribution result in incumbent
lawmakers ignoring non-contributors because they are unlikely to be sources of
financial support for the next election.
The
Rev. Richard Gilbert, Pastor of First Unitarian Church in Rochester and Board
Chair of Interfaith IMPACT of New York State, observes, “conservative thinkers
understand economic and political freedom as inextricably interwoven. Economist Milton Friedman sees the
capitalist economy as a voting booth -- each person voting with his/her dollars
for the goods and services (including government presumably) that he/she
wishes. But increasing concentration of
economic power as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and large
corporations control decision-making threatens this philosophy of human
freedom. In political democracy it is
one person, one vote. In political
economy we are in danger of seeing one dollar, one vote, since those with
dollars exert a disproportionate influence on public policy. To a disturbing degree power grows out of
the end, not of a gun barrel, but a dollar bill. Since members of the House and Senate need to raise thousands of
dollars a day to conduct a campaign for election or re-election, we have a new
Golden Rule of Politics: those with the
gold make the rules -- or at least control those who do. “
Why should we, the Church who has grown under all but the most repressive regimes, even care?
Bases for Response
The
most cursory examination of Scripture demonstrates that Truth, as revelation,
deepens through time and experience. Norms are revised within the history of
the Bible itself. The God pictured as jealous in Exodus, opposed to all other
gods, is revealed as the One God of universal scope by Second Isaiah.
As
faith encounters life among people, what we affirm deepens, evolves. We see
Scripture anew. The re-discovery of
equality and individuality as core human ideals three to four hundred years ago
created such an encounter. Thus we had
the opportunity to reaffirm that the God manifested in the person of Jesus of Nazareth
is the God of the outcasts, the one who has come for the “lost sheep of
Israel,” the one who identifies with “the least of these.”
So
we savor Scripture anew.
We
see the Old Testament warning about such concentration of money and power.
Society organized itself around the "Year of the Jubilee," (Leviticus
25), in which land was redistributed to its original owners as a means of
equalizing land ownership. Thus was the primary source of wealth in agrarian
society spread out in the days of the Judges.
As monarchy rose and wealth stratified, the prophets identified the
stratification of wealth as a primary source of God’s judgment against Israel,
and later, Judah. Isaiah warned, "Woe to those who joined house to house,
who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell
alone in the midst of the land. The
Lord of hosts has sworn in my hearing: 'Surely many houses shall be desolate,
large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant." (5:8_9) Amos was powerful in his denunciation of
those "who trample upon the needy" and "buy the poor for silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals." (8:4_6).
In
New Testament we find a very strong bias toward the poor and powerless. Luke (chapter 4) portrays Jesus’ inaugural
sermon evoking the Jubilee “The Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the
poor . . . today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” Matthew (chapter
25) has Jesus identify with the oppressed “As you have done to the least of
these . . . so you have done to me.”
Clearly
the concentration of power and wealth was not tolerable for the early
Christians. Acts reports Christians sharing their wealth in common, and Paul
criticizes the Corinthians (I Corinthians 11) for allowing members of the
congregation to go hungry during their Eucharistic meals.
As
we re-appropriate the clear Scriptural witness against the stratification of
wealth, we speak out against its consequences in our society. The loss of
meaningful access to public policy processes is a basic and disastrous
consequence.
And
we are losing our power to participate meaningfully in democratic
government. The money-driven political
process is moving us toward democracy in form but oligarchy in fact. This trend
has corrupted public policy and widened the already gaping disparities between
rich and poor, a gap in which New York leads the nation.
Our
calling is to work to create justice. Justice demands equity among all sectors.
Justice demands an end to poverty, universal access to basic needs and
services, a sustainable and livable planet, and equality under the law. We are
a long way from any of these, and the corrupted political process keeps them,
rather than priorities, disrespected as “tired old ideas from the past.” Yet
justice is not trendy. It is witness to the timeless God who interacts in time.
As we work for justice, we proclaim that our God indeed interacts in time
still.
Current Legislation
A
“Clean Money, Clean Elections” bill is regularly introduced in the New York
State Legislature but to date none have gone anywhere. Nevertheless, this
approach, patterned after successful reform legislation in Maine,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Arizona, addresses the problem more
comprehensively, yet more elegantly,
than any other approach. The bill has several major goals:
·
reducing
and limiting campaign spending
·
limiting
the flow of special interest money
·
providing
a fixed, equal amount of public finding to qualified candidates
· banning
“soft money”
· encouraging
debates
· improving
disclosure
· strengthening
enforcement
Spending and Contributions
Although
the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that campaign spending limits
cannot be imposed on all candidates (Buckley v. Veleo), candidates may
certainly volunteer to do so. Model clean elections legislation gives public
funds to candidates who agree to limit their spending and contributions, and
who collect a set amount of small contributions from voters (such seed
contributions serve to establish the viability of the candidate).
Candidates
who want to receive funding qualify by collecting a set number of $5.00
contributions from voters. They also may collect some seed money contributions
of up to $100.00. Clean Money, Clean Elections candidates agree not to accept
any other private contributions. There also will be a new limit of $1,000.00 on
campaign contributions to candidates, parties, and committees, with an
aggregate limit of $25,000.00 for contributions by any one individual or
entity, thus ending the powerful pools of “soft money” that has corrupted
campaigns over the past twenty years.
Qualified
candidates receive public finds equal to the spending limit for that election.
The total amount of public finding is limited to 1/10 of 1% of the state budget
in a four-year election cycle. Qualified candidates can also receive additional
funds, up to three times the spending limit, if opposed by well-financed
independent candidates or issue groups.
Money for clean elections will come from an income tax check-off,
increased lobby registration fees, fines for election law violations, and if
necessary, general funds.
Other innovations
Clean
money, clean election candidates agree to participate in at least two primary
debates and three general election debates. The bill requires disclosure of the
occupation and employer of contributors to candidates in state elections. The
Board of Elections would also be restructured with enforcement powers.
Call to Action
Clean
Elections has so far become law in states where voters have the opportunity to
vote the policy into law directly. In New York, we do not have that
opportunity. We must rely on the Legislature and Governor to pass a clean
elections bill and sign it into law. If advocacy were to continue as usual, the
prospects of change are slim.
Proponents
of clean elections, including The New York State Council of Churches, the
League of Women Voters, Citizen Action, and Common Cause, to name a few, are no
match for the money and influence of opponents. The influence of current
opponents to clean elections legislation is proportional to their ability to
contribute to election campaigns. Clean elections would lessen their influence.
Legislators
will listen to less influential groups when a critical mass of opposition to
the status quo rises and maintains
unyielding pressure for change. The women’s suffrage and civil rights movements
are notable examples of politically “impossible” dreams becoming reality.
The
Church can serve as a community-based catalyst for developing and maintaining
the critical mass. We are credible voices of ethics and morality within our
communities. We bring together people of all political, socioeconomic, and
ethnic backgrounds around a common identity. We open our doors to the
community.
Here
might be our “marching orders.” Let us be facilitating awareness at the local
level. Let us be recruiting pastors and lay leaders, developing and providing
action packets, planning and/or host statewide and regional consciousness
raising events, followed by action. In short, Let us be empowering ourselves
with the renewed conviction that we can take responsibility for the well being
of our society through truly representative elections.