One recent day, my newspaper had two front-page stories related to money and politics. One was about financial contributions made from the political action committees of prospective presidential candidates to Iowa office-seekers of the same party. Another reported that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been appointed to the board of the corporation planning the controversial Bakken pipeline.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled money in politics is free “speech,” and doesn’t buy influence. But both of those stories offered small examples of how it might. In the first, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants Iowa operatives in his camp, so he donates some of his PAC funds to their campaigns. They in turn may feel grateful enough to repay the favor by talking Paul up to their supporters.
In the second case, Perry gets a direct financial stake in the Bakken pipeline, which would stretch from North Dakota to Illinois and is opposed by environmental and other groups. By investing in Perry, the company could bank on having a friend in the White House to create a climate favorable for such projects. In 2012, the head of Energy Transfer Partners gave a quarter-million dollars to a Super PAC for Perry. And now Perry has a seat on its board.
Traditional PACs allow people to donate up to $5,000 to a candidate in each round of an election campaign, and $15,000 a year to a national political party. But Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of corporate, union or private dollars to promote or discredit a candidate. They just can’t donate directly to the candidate or party.
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in the 2014 elections, 1,300 Super PACs raised more than $695 million. But for all that spending, 2014 had the lowest turnout in midterm elections since 1942.
John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for the progressive Nation magazine and co-author of “Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America,” told an Iowan audience recently that they get more one-on-one time with presidential candidates than anyone else and should use that to grill them. He suggested everyone ask the candidates if they agree with the Supreme Court that corporations are people, and if unlimited spending to influence elections is protected free speech.
Ultimately, those rulings can only be overridden by a constitutional amendment. But history, notes Nichols, is filled with people organizing in response to an injustice and getting the Constitution changed — like the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote, the 13th amendment abolishing slavery and the 15th amendment giving black people voting rights.
Amending the Constitution is a long and laborious process. The 27th amendment, on congressional pay, was submitted in 1789, but not ratified until 1992. On the other hand, the 26th amendment, giving 18-year-olds voting rights, took only three months to be ratified in 1971. Most Americans understood the absurdity of drafting young people who couldn’t even vote. I hope most Americans also understand the absurdity of politicians using their office to return a debt to the deep pockets that helped get them elected.
About the Author
