EDMUND BURKEAs a liberal this is tough to say. Arguably, it’s heresy. But I believe it’s time to end to caps on how much individuals can contribute directly to a candidate’s campaign.
I say this though I am filled by misgivings. I am disgusted by what big money purchases in modern politics – notably, mud-slinging ads. There are those who claim that such ads enlighten voters. I don’t believe it. Many ads are grossly deceptive, and the most deceptive are often the most effective. There has, of course, always been mendacity in politics. But the blend of enormous sums of money and the visual power of television is a particularly toxic brew.
I am also troubled by how much money it takes to win election to office. Candidates must devote enormous time and energy to raising the campaign funds, and in the process become beholden to enterprises and industries that want a great many things from government.
None of this is going to change however. It was 36 years ago when, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to limit how much individuals can contribute to political advertising, as long as the money is not contributed to candidates. The Court’s more recent decision in Citizens United – that corporations and unions may also spend unlimited sums of money in the same manner – is likely to be just as permanent. Good government groups may be motivated by the best of intentions in seeking to overturn those decisions by constitutional amendment; but that isn’t going to happen.
We are now in the era of the Super-PAC, which can raise and spend unlimited funds for the specific purpose of electing a particular candidate, and may be operated by people with close connections to that candidate, just as long as it maintains a fig leaf of independence.
The rules of the game have become absurd. That’s one good reason to ditch them.
I have also been persuaded by a seven-page essay titled “On Limiting Campaign Contributions” by former Senator James L. Buckley in his book Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State (Encounter Books 2010). Buckley, of course, was the lead plaintiff in Buckley v. Valeo. In his essay, Buckley notes that he and his co-plaintiffs “were political underdogs and outsiders.” Buckley had won election to the United States Senate in 1970 as the candidate of the Conservative Party of New York State. Another plaintiff was Senator Eugene McCarthy, the anti-Vietnam war candidate who challenged a sitting president of his own party for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968. Although McCarthy did well enough in the New Hampshire primary to stun Lyndon Johnson and cause him to decide not to seek re-election, many in the Democratic Party considered McCarthy’s effort unforgivable. Another plaintiff was Stewart Mott – a benefactor of liberal causes and candidates – who had contributed $220,000 (the equivalent of about $1.3 million today) to McCarthy’s presidential campaign. Buckley observes that neither he nor McCarthy could have run those races if the $1,000 contribution limit imposed by amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 had then been if effect.
Buckley goes on to write:
The 1974 amendments were supposed to de-emphasize the role of money in federal elections. Instead, by limiting individual contributions…that law has made the search for money a candidate’s central preoccupation. When I ran in 1970, I never made telephone calls requesting money, and I doubt I attended as many as a dozen fundraising functions. Passing the hat was the exclusive concern of my finance committee. Today, the need to scrounge for money has proven so burdensome that two senators recently cited this as a major reason for their decision to retire from public life.
Buckley persuasively argues that because they are so prolix, campaign finance laws handicap insurgent candidates and grass-roots campaigns, and enhance the advantages of incumbents. He also observes that contribution limits have fueled the rise of PACs, which were created to circumvent those limits.
It would be better if donors contributed directly to candidates, and that candidates be responsible – and accountable – for their campaigns. It is also preferable that it become easier for candidates to raise money.
The internet makes it possible to require instant disclosure of campaign contributions. That makes sense. Voters should be able to learn who is contributing to candidates and to entities that sponsor political advertising. Senator Buckley is concerned – as was Justice Clarence Thomas in Citizens United – about disclosure leading to harassment of contributors. On that I disagree. Although Justice Thomas claimed there have been “death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property,” and other serious incidents, the harassment of campaign contributors is probably rare. Penalties for threats and other serious forms of harrassment should be heavy, and the FBI should vigorously pursue perpetrators. But the value of disclosure is too great to give it up because harassment will sometimes occur.
Doing away with campaign contribution limits will not lead us into Nirvana. But it is likely to be an improvement over the present state of affairs.