Dirty Money

For decades we have heard politicians and those who follow politics talk about the need for campaign finance reform.  We have also heard many other voices say that no reform is needed other than allowing unlimited money from unlimited sources.  I think most people would agree that contributions must be regulated to some degree while still allowing people to invest in politics.  While I do not believe it should be unlimited, I do agree that in some capacity money does equal speech.

Just like speech though, we have laws that limit types of speech in specific situations.

I say all that to get to a story I read today about a “company” that incorporated, contributed $1 Million to a PAC, then dissolved — all in roughly a six-week period.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate for President, was the beneficiary of this contribution.  Rather, a PAC designed to help Romney become President benefited.  But there is little distinction between the Romney campaign and the PAC.

To be clear, I have no reason to pick on Romney specifically.  If the election were held tomorrow, I’d probably vote to re-elect the President.  But if it were between President Obama and Gov. Romney, I am not sure I’d weep openly if Romney won – even if he does wear magic underwear.

I think this exposes a huge flaw in our campaign finance system.  As noted in the story, a similar PAC has been established in an effort to help the President win re-election.

The hefty size of the W Spann contribution, and its murky origins, highlights the growing prominence of groups like Restore Our Future, one of a wave of super PACs that are amassing hefty campaign war chests this year — unrestricted by any limits on how much they can collect from corporations and other wealthy donors. (A similar group, Priorities USA, was recently created by two former White House aides, including former Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, to aid President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.)

This new wave of spending comes thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  In a nutshell, this ruling says corporations have the same rights as living, breathing humans to contribute to political action committees.  This means corporate entities, labor unions, and other similar organizations can contribute unlimited funds to these “super PACs” that ultimately decide an election.  That means hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide spent on behalf of candidates that does not have to be reported in any form or fashion.

As the dust settles from the recent debt/deficit debate in Washington, I think it’s important that all sides look for some common ground.  I would think that most people – people who believe in the “one person, one vote” philosophy – have an interest in protecting the integrity of elections.  Grassroots movements can start anywhere, and as the Tea Party has clearly shown – grassroots campaigns can be very effective.  Perhaps it’s time for all partisans to come together around one issue: legitimate, reasoned campaign finance reform.