It’s Time for Campaign Finance Reform

Tuesday, 22 Feb 2011 12:41 PM

By Brad Blakeman

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
In light of January 2010's landmark Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, it is time for serious, meaningful, lasting, and reasonable campaign finance reform.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held in favor of Citizens United and found that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts during election cycles cannot be limited under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court struck down a provision of McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for profit and not for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Citizens United case did not affect the continuing federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

The decision allows campaigns or candidates to expend whatever funds they want to engage in “issue advocacy and education” at anytime during or between election cycles.

Even though U.S. corporations and unions under current law cannot contribute directly to campaigns or candidates there are ways for outsiders to influence outcomes of elections that is disturbing and fundamentally unfair.

Here are some examples of the top 10 industries giving to members of Congress in the 2010 election cycle as reported by OpenSecrets.org:


  Millions D% R% Most Gained
Lawyers/Law Firms $59 82 18 Harry Reid (D)
Retired $40 56 44 Barbara Boxer (D)
Health Professionals $37 58 42 Mark Kirk (R)
Securities/Invest $31 64 36 Charles Schumer (D)
Real Estate $30 61 38 Charles Schumer (D)
Insurance $23 53 47 Charles Schumer (D)
Lobbyists $23 69 30 Harry Reid (D)
Leadeship PACS $21 65 34 Roy Blunt (R)
Dem/Liberals $19 100 0 Joe Sestak (D)
Pharm/Health Prod $16 58 42 Richard Burr (R)

The top “heavy hitters” organizations for the 2010 election cycle were the following as reported by OpenSecrets.org: ActBlue, $50 million; AT&T Inc, $46 million; American Fed of State, County & Municipal Employees, $43 million; National Assn of Realtors, $38 million; Goldman Sachs, $33 million.

A 527 is a tax-exempt organization named after the section of the IRS Code that governs entities created primarily to influence a nomination, or election.

In light of the Citizens United case how do we limit the amount of influence and donation from “outsiders” who have no real nexus or real “local interest” in the outcome of elections?

I suggest the following steps be considered to level the political playing field:

House races:
  •  Citizens can only contribute to a Congressional candidate in the District of their domicile.
  • A corporation, (not for profit or otherwise), or union with a nexus to a congressional district can make a monetary contribution to a candidate. The “nexus” must be a test of contacts with the district to be determined by Congress.
  • Congress shall determine amounts of contribution by individuals, unions and corporations.
  • National, state and local party shall have caps set on their contributions to House candidates, directly or indirectly to be determined by Congress.
  • Corporations, (not for profit or otherwise), and unions must disclose to shareholders/members and the FEC the amount of monies donated to for political purposes as well as monies expended for “electioneering” communications and where such monies were expended prior to or contemporaneous with the communications being made. They must also disclose the content of the communication.
  • Corporations, (not for profit or otherwise) and unions must advertise in their own names and must disclose within the advertising their name and nexus to the District in which the ad appears.
For U.S. Senate races:
  • Citizens can only contribute to a U.S. Senate candidate in the State of their domicile.
  • A corporation, (not for profit or otherwise), or union with a nexus to a State can make a monetary contribution to a U.S. Senate candidate. The “nexus” must be a test of contacts with the State to be determined by Congress.
  • Congress shall determine amounts of contribution by individuals, unions, and corporations.
  • National, state and local parties shall have caps set on their contributions to U.S. Senate candidates, directly or indirectly to be determined by Congress.
  • Corporations, (not for profit or otherwise), and unions must disclose to shareholders/members and the FEC the amount of monies donated for political purposes as well as monies expended for “electioneering” communications and where such monies were expended prior to or contemporaneous with the communications being made. They must also disclose the content of the communication.
  • Corporations, (not for profit or otherwise) and unions must advertise in their own names and must disclose within the advertising their name and nexus to the State in which the ad appears.

For presidential races:
  • Citizens can contribute to presidential primaries and general elections in amounts determined by Congress however such donations could only be utilized by campaigns in the state of their domicile.
  • A corporation, (not for profit or otherwise), or union can make a monetary contribution to a presidential candidate’s primary and/or general election. Such donations can only be utilized by campaigns in the state of their nexus. For instance, if General Motors has a plant in Michigan it can donate in an amount to be determined by Congress and can only be utilized in the state of Michigan.
  • Congress shall determine amounts of contribution by individuals, unions and corporations.
  • National, state and local parties shall have caps set on their contributions to general election campaigns and conventions, directly or indirectly to be determined by Congress.
  • Corporations, (not for profit or otherwise), and unions must disclose to shareholders/members and the FEC the amount of monies expended for political purposes and monies expended for “electioneering” communications and where such monies were expended prior to or contemporaneous with the communications being made. They must also disclose the content of the communication.
  • Corporations, (not for profit or otherwise) and unions must advertise in their own names and must disclose their identity within the advertising.
A candidate for the House, Senate or president can expend whatever personal wealth they wish to contribute to their own campaigns without limit however, once a candidate passes the threshold of contribution in an amount decided by Congress, the U.S. government will match that contribution to opponents.

Today, Citizens can only vote in the district of their domicile. A citizen does not have the right to vote in the district of their choosing. Corporations and unions should only be allowed to seek to influence an election, if they have a nexus to that district/state.

The elimination of outside influence would reduce the vast amounts of money candidates and parties would need to raise and would give more of a voice to those who have the greatest stake in the outcome of an election, the voters, corporations, unions and interest groups within that district or State.

Why should an enormously wealthy businesswoman who is domiciled in Texas be able to influence a Congressional race in Florida?

Why should a U.S. corporation in New York be able to donate to a U.S. Senate race in California where they have no presence or nexus?

Now is the time for fair and reasonable campaign finance reform. It is not in America’s interest to continue to allow elections to be influenced in disregard of the rights of candidates and the citizens most affected by the outcome of elections.


Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of politics and public policy at Georgetown University.



© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Krauthammer: GOP Must Push Its Agenda After Taking Senate

Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014 22:07 PM

Republicans have 3-1 odds of taking over the Senate, and they need to use that power to push their agenda, conservative  . . .

Wyoming Gay Couples Get Marriage Licenses

Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014 22:03 PM

Wyoming has become the latest state to allow same-sex unions, bringing the wave of legalizations to a place where the 19 . . .

Alveda King: Obama Proves Skin-Color Voting Doesn't Help Blacks

Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014 21:13 PM

Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is at sharp odds with the Rev. Al Sharpton about which political  . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved