The debate over money in politics rose to a new sense of urgency this month, following the Supreme Court’s decision that declared aggregate limits on individuals’ political spending unconstitutional. The case, McCutcheon v. FEC, is a follow-up to Citizens United v. FEC, the controversial 2010 ruling striking down limits on corporations’ political spending. Since Citizen United, those concerned with the implications of unlimited money in politics have been calling for an amendment to the Constitution overturning the Court’s dangerous precedent. Now that the Court is expanding this doctrine, the time has come for such a measure.
The American judiciary is insulated from the political process for good reason. In a democracy it is necessary for a counter-majoritarian institution to protect the rights of minorities. But money is not a minority. While those who possess an exorbitant amount of America’s wealth are a tiny minority, their right to unduly influence elections is not a right worthy of protection.
Luckily the framers of the Constitution were wise enough to create a check on the Court – the power to amend the Constitution. Congress and the American people have exercised this right to overturn unwise judicial decisions before. In 1868 the 14th Amendment provided for, among other things, the equal protection of all citizens, overturning the pre-war Court’s infamous Dred Scott decisions, allowing for second-class citizenship for African Americans. The rights protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment have been undeniable. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed the federal government to levy an income tax for the first time, overturning the 1895 case Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust. Though some radical conservatives may disagree with the wisdom of such a tax, America’s status in the world today would be unachievable without this reliable form of revenue.
Uncontrolled money in elections creates a problem worthy of such action. Candidates rely more and more every election cycle on contributions from wealthy donors. Elected officials are loathe to upset monied interests for fear of a hit to their fundraising as a result. Apart from such potential conflicts of interest, the price of running a modern campaign – enabled by unlimited expenditures – leaves legislators spending more time fundraising than legislating. The Boston Globe reported last year that party leaders direct freshmen congressmen to spend at least four hours a day soliciting donations for their parties. With such practices in place it is no surprise modern-day Washington is home to the “Do Nothing Congress.” The country’s representatives are spending their time and effort raising money instead of leading.
This is not to mention to endless flood of annoying campaign ads every other November.
To solve all of these problems money would need to be taken out of the political process completely. Obviously some funds are needed to properly run any campaign. Candidates need to be able to communicate their positions and sell themselves to the electorate. Such expenses could be covered by public funding. Public financing is available for presidential elections, but candidates rarely opt to use it since the $91.2 million guarantee is a piddling of the more than $683 million Barack Obama’s campaign spent on his 2012 reelection. A constitutional amendment could forbid private financing and fund campaigns exclusively from public revenues.
This is a radical idea for sure, but there is no reason to accept the status quo. The Court’s system gives undue influence to the wealthy while encouraging a governmental system in which money is the primary constituency. If there has ever been an issue this generation needs to amend the Constitution to solve, it is campaign finance.
