Make peace with money in politics
At the crescendo of a litany of issues like raising the minimum wage and expanding health care, all designed to rouse the Democratic convention arena and rally support for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders got one of the strongest responses of Monday night when he called to overturn Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that unleashed a flood of money into politics.
That’s a fine eventual goal — and one that Hillary Clinton shares. But it’s wrong, not to mention counterproductive, to see overturning that ruling as the prerequisite for advancing liberal causes in America today.
In fact, until a future court reverses that flawed decision who knows when, liberals should ramp up, not tamp down, their giving to superPACs and advocacy nonprofits. And they should ignore well-meaning but counterproductive calls to end unlimited contributions to third-party entities made by good-government groups.
As the presidential race and electionyear fund-raising kicks into overdrive, that’s not something Common Cause, OpenSecrets and others who think big money in politics is inherently corrosive want to hear.
But conservatives will never back away from unlimited giving, as long as it is legal. Why should liberals?
In the world in which we live, it often takes money to win public policy arguments and elections. That’s a blunt fact. And the stakes are extraordinarily high. Congress has abrogated its responsibility to cities. The country’s mayors struggle daily to provide adequate education, child care, job training, better wages, mentalhealth services and affordable housing to cities’ low-to-moderate income families. Not to mention rebuilding deteriorated bridges and roads and upgrading subways and buses, so essential for economic development and job growth, especially for communities of color.
Washington’s neglect of urban problems for decades and the consequences of historic racism have created devastating and urgent conditions in many low-income neighborhoods where, by the way, most of the crime occurs.
If liberals — and I’m one — want to lessen the influence on policy decisions by conservative, big-money interests and reduce obstacles for those without the means to make their voices heard, then they have to not only match but out-raise conservatives.
Good-government groups have good intentions. They seek to level the playing field so campaigns are less about money and more about the vote — one man, one woman, one vote. They also seek to end potential conflicts of interest between wealthy donors and politicians who benefit from or are associated with super PACs and advocacy nonprofits.
Ironically, though, their demands exacerbate the disproportionate wealth effects of Citizens United, which makes clear that anyone can raise and spend unlimited funds to promote their own agenda or tear down someone else’s. The court did so with the knowledge the wealthy and powerful are much better positioned to take advantage of what it deemed a constitutional right — spending money to promote one’s beliefs in a political agenda.
Given the racial turmoil in Baton Rouge, Dallas and other urban areas, this is not the time for progressives to unilaterally disarm against right-wing forces standing in the way of improving economic conditions in low-income communities.
Progressive and liberal candidates are, by and large, advocating for agendas to address these problems head on. In today’s media environment and with Congress practically nonfunctional, you can’t get an ambitious agenda done without an adjunct campaign to explain, promote and rally public support. That requires fund-raising.
Fund-raising should be transparent, allowing the public to discern real or apparent conflicts of interest and ferret out when those giving huge sums might be currying favor with candidates or elected officials. Some advocacy nonprofits, such as the 501c-3 nonprofits, are not required by law to disclose their individual donors, and most don’t. An exception is one started by Mayor de Blasio (my former boss). He raised large amounts of money to help pass and promote his pre-K and affordable housing programs, and when he did, he disclosed each and every one of his donors.
That level of transparency is unprecedented and should be required.
Keeping private money from inappropriate influence of government decisions is crucial to the integrity of a democratic system. Yet that does not mean we need to sacrifice advocacy for what many Americans believe to be sound investments in our neighborhoods and city.
Private money in advocacy campaigns is here for the foreseeable future — it’s just a question of whose money. Will we allow only wealthy vested interests, whether business or labor, to buy their way into a public policy debate, or do the voiceless, stuck in places with high crime and unemployment, get a seat at the table, too?