
“The only way to fundamentally change the dysfunctional dynamic of our elections is to restore ‘purchasing power’ to the American people through a voluntary public funding system.”
- Bill HudnutThe corrupting influence of big money in politics did not begin with the Supreme Court ruling. For years, we’ve been
applying Band-Aids to a system of special-interest-funded elections that’s rotten at the core. New limits will not change the fact that politicians continue to rely on millions of dollars from Wall Street banks, pharmaceutical companies, Big Oil, labor unions and other wealthy interests to run for re-election.
The energy industry, including oil and gas, electric utilities, mining, and waste management, contributed an astonishing $455 million to candidates for the House and Senate between 1990 and 2006. Members of the Senate and House received an average of $161,423 and $43,658 respectively in just the first seven months of 2008. To put this in perspective, the energy industry contributed 20 times more than environmental groups between 1990 and 2008.
Is it any surprise that Congress has been unable to shape a sound national energy policy based on scientific evidence and the needs of all our people, not just the monied interests?
The Post asked former politicians and others to name one idea — other than reforming the much-discussed filibuster — that might get Congress moving. Below are contributions from Mack McClarty, Norman J. Ornstein, Mark J. Penn, Warren Rudman, Sarah Binder and Forrest Maltzman, Dana Perino, and Rob Richie.
It’s time to return to our roots and take up Teddy Roosevelt’s challenge from over a century ago by enacting the only real and lasting solution I know: citizen-funded elections. Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by more than 130 members of Congress, money from special interests would be replaced by small donations from constituents and matching federal funds. Matching funds, raised through a fee on large-scale government contracts, would go to serious, hardworking candidates who demonstrate a broad base of public support and who say no to large donations.
A binge of special interest money seems inevitable unless Congress acts quickly — before this year’s election — to repair the damage from the Supreme Court ruling that ended restraints on campaign spending by corporations and unions.
A major US Supreme Court decision earlier this month reversed two decades of legal precedent and relaxed restrictions on how corporations can get involved in political campaigns. We’ll look at this decision, what it means and how it may affect the country’s political landscape and New Hampshire’s elections.
From Progressive Talk – AM 760
Supporters of campaign finance reform were dealt a blow this week by the U.S. Supreme Court. They ruled that corporations have essentially the same rights as citizens when it comes to making political speeches. We hear from special guests about the decision including John Rauh, founder of Americans for Campaign Reform; Buzz Scherr, ACLU national board member and law professor; and Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy. We will also hear from campaign finance advocate Granny “D” who celebrates her 100th birthday this week.
(HOST) Commentator Madeleine Kunin has been thinking about the Citizen’s United ruling and what it will mean for future campaign funding.
(KUNIN) The Supreme Court decision, which will allow unfettered campaign contributions from corporations and unions, poses a threat to the very workings of our democracy.
And just when we thought that corporations had amassed as much political power as any non-human legal entity lacking constitutional protection possibly could, a slim majority of the U.S. Supreme Court today decided otherwise. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has overturned decades’ worth of established precedent limiting corporate money in federal elections in Citizens United v. FEC, thereby opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending.