|
I’m
two states removed from
California, and I don’t know who I’d have
supported in
San Francisco’s recent runoff election for
mayor. But I know this: democracy lost.
Gavin Newsom won by a 53% to 47% margin, while his $3.8
million budget dwarfed that of his opponent, Matt Gonzalez, by a 10 to 1
margin. Gonzalez won about nine times as many votes per dollar spent and
even Newsom’s supporters would be hard-pressed to deny that money made the
difference.
Though the race officially was non-partisan, Newsom is
a Democrat and Gonzalez is Green. Democratic celebrities Bill Clinton and Al
Gore stumped for Newsom, and the party brought in resources that overwhelmed
Gonzalez’ volunteer-driven campaign. Ironically, Gonzalez won support from
the majority of Democratic voters, while Newsom was the clear favorite of
Republicans (and was endorsed by the Republican party previously).
Mr. Newsom obviously was a strong candidate and his
fundraising presumably was entirely legal, but that doesn’t mitigate the
damage done to citizens whose only voice in the election was their vote.
Wealthy donors got their man into office because they were able to vote with
their dollars, too. That’s plutocracy, not democracy.
In a decision fittingly announced just hours after
San Francisco’s election was decided, a
U.S. Supreme Court majority made clear that plutocracy was fine by them. The
Court upheld the doubling of limits on direct “hard money” contributions to
candidates for federal office authorized by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA).
Yes, the Court upheld some limits on corruption, but
the ruling also demonstrates the justices’ blind eye to the constitutional
principle of “equal protection.” The
San Francisco election offers compelling
evidence of why BCRA fails to fundamentally strengthen democracy.
Indeed the BCRA’s doubling of hard money limits will
further segregate Americans into distinct classes of democratic
participation. One group consists of the majority of us who can express our
preferences with our votes or volunteer time. The other class is those
wielding real power--the ability to finance the bulk of candidates'
campaigns.
The BCRA does not empower average Americans to create
choices or alter this class system—it worsens the divide.
Just one in one thousand adult Americans make hard
money contributions of even $1,000, yet candidates for the 2004 presidential
nomination have raised more than 80% of their individual investments from
donors of at least $1,000. How many of them do you know?
Wealthy individuals may each invest at least $4000 in a
single candidacy by writing separate checks for $2000 contributions to a
candidate’s primary and general election warchests. The power of those .1%
of citizens making thousand-dollar investments is further amplified by their
ability to “bundle” contributions in the name of family members, co-workers
or employees to offer thousands of dollars to a candidate in a lump sum,
rendering the limits as rigid as a rubber band. Any skeptics need merely
look at the Bush 2004 reelection campaign, which requires investors to amass
a $200,000 bundle to be dubbed a “Ranger” with serious influence.
This bundling also lends itself to intimidation, as
with the recently uncovered documents revealing the strong-arm tactics of
drug giant Bristol-Myers Squibb. Four different executives confirmed they
were pressured with thinly-veiled threats by their bosses to send $1000
checks to George Bush--in their spouse’s name as well as their own.
And those investors are not a representative sampling
of Americans. According to a study by the Joyce Foundation, 80% are males
from households whose annual income exceeds $100,000. More than 95% are
white. It should be no surprise how closely Congress reflects those
distinctly unrepresentative demographics.
But does this really determine election outcomes?
Unquestionably. Incumbents and higher-spending
candidates win almost all federal races--and the same person usually is
both. House incumbents won 97% of contests in which they ran in 2002, and
the highest-spending candidate won 95% of House races and 75% of Senate
races.
So what do we do? The first step is to identify the
roots of the problem. In this case, it’s the Supreme Court. With its 1976
Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Court leaped over logic to declare that
spending money to influence elections was a form of "free speech" protected
by the First Amendment and largely beyond democratic control.
The remedy is daunting but simple: reversing the
baseless and profoundly anti-democratic precedent of the Buckley
ruling. This would allow the common-sense distinction between speech as the
Constitution intends--expressing one's opinion--and using economic power to
overwhelm the voices of other citizens.
Various forms of public campaign financing certainly
are part of the solution, but democracy cannot coexist with a legal
precedent of money equaling speech.
The
San Francisco election once again
demonstrated money overpowering democracy, but it was no aberration.
Citizens who value the principle of one person, one vote should demand a
Constitutional Amendment to restore what the Supreme Court has
broken—fair elections and our democracy.
Jeff Milchen directs
ReclaimDemocracy.org, an
organization devoted to realizing the promise of one person, one vote and
restoring citizen authority over corporations. If your organization would
like to learn more about joining a coalition effort to revoke the
money=speech precedent, please
contact them.
© 2003
ReclaimDemocracy.org.
Other Articles by Jeff Milchen
*
The
Fiction of Free Trade
HOME
|
