Don’t let well-heeled drown out citizen voices in campaigns
Imagine: Special interests spending unlimited amounts of money to defeat, say, candidates who support mayoral control of city schools.
Or how about incumbent and former elected officials holding on to hefty campaign donations that can be spent with few holds barred?
The latter is already happening and the former is a huge possibility in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. These scenarios underscore the need for Congress and the state Legislature to put new teeth into campaign finance laws.
In Washington, since last month’s 5-4 Roberts court ruling that the federal government may not ban political spending by corporations or unions in candidate elections, many lawmakers have been scratching their heads.
Disappointingly, even Sen. John McCain, who 10 years ago vowed “Until I draw my last breath, I will fight” for campaign finance reform, has given up. “The Supreme Court has spoken. I respect their decision.”
Good thing President Obama, who chided the court for its ruling in his State of the Union speech, sees the situation differently. Still, he must push Congress hard to mitigate the court’s damage.
With new efforts under way to strike down political disclosure laws, Congress should focus on making corporate funding traceable. The identity of corporate donors should be as transparent as the side-effects of advertised pharmaceuticals.
As for hefty war chests like the $603,220 that former Republican Congressman Tom Reynolds is sitting on, there ought to be a law. On both the federal and state levels, such a statute should spell out clearly how war chests must be spent and within certain time frames.
Conservatives insist that campaign spending is about free speech, but it shouldn’t be a license for the well-heeled to drown out voices of everyday citizens.
