More Money Can Beat Big Money
20:11 17/11/2011
- Πηγή: i-Reporter
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
Nine senators introduced a resolution early this month that would amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). These two cases had restricted Congress’s power to limit contributions to political campaigns and independent political expenditures, by both individuals and corporations. Under the amendment, Congress and the states would have
the power to limit both contributions and independent expenditures.
“By limiting the influence of big money in politics,” said one of the senators, Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, “elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets. We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.”
This proposal is just the latest verse in a very tired song. Once again, the answer to the problem of campaign finance is to “just say no.” Limit contributions. Limit independent expenditures. Limit soft money donations. No, no, no.
But at some point, Congress has got to muster the courage to say what every sane reformer recognizes: that we won’t solve the problem of “big money donors” until Congress begins to say yes. Not just finance limits, but also finance support. Not just ways to restrict, but also ways to enable.
The framers of our Constitution gave us a republic. They meant by that a “representative democracy.” Or as Federalist No. 52 put it, a Congress “dependent upon the People alone.”
Despite the founders’ intentions, however, Congress has evolved from a dependency “upon the people,” to an increasing dependency upon the funders. Members spend 30 percent to 70 percent of their time raising money to stay in Congress, or to get their party back in power. Less than 1 percent of Americans give more than $200 in a political campaign. No more than .05 percent give the maximum in any Congressional campaign. A career focused on the 1 percent — or, worse, the .05 percent — will never earn them the confidence of the 99 percent. Indeed, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, so far it hasn’t earned them the confidence of any more than 9 percent.
So long as elections cost money, we won’t end Congress’s dependence on its funders. But we can change it. We can make “the funders” “the people.” Following Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, we could adopt a system of small-dollar public funding for Congress.
Here’s just one way: almost every voter pays at least $50 in some form of federal taxes. So imagine a system that gave a rebate of that first $50 in the form of a “democracy voucher.” That voucher could then be given to any candidate for Congress who agreed to one simple condition: the only money that candidate would accept to finance his or her campaign would be either “democracy voucher
Nine senators introduced a resolution early this month that would amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). These two cases had restricted Congress’s power to limit contributions to political campaigns and independent political expenditures, by both individuals and corporations. Under the amendment, Congress and the states would have
“By limiting the influence of big money in politics,” said one of the senators, Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, “elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets. We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.”
This proposal is just the latest verse in a very tired song. Once again, the answer to the problem of campaign finance is to “just say no.” Limit contributions. Limit independent expenditures. Limit soft money donations. No, no, no.
But at some point, Congress has got to muster the courage to say what every sane reformer recognizes: that we won’t solve the problem of “big money donors” until Congress begins to say yes. Not just finance limits, but also finance support. Not just ways to restrict, but also ways to enable.
The framers of our Constitution gave us a republic. They meant by that a “representative democracy.” Or as Federalist No. 52 put it, a Congress “dependent upon the People alone.”
Despite the founders’ intentions, however, Congress has evolved from a dependency “upon the people,” to an increasing dependency upon the funders. Members spend 30 percent to 70 percent of their time raising money to stay in Congress, or to get their party back in power. Less than 1 percent of Americans give more than $200 in a political campaign. No more than .05 percent give the maximum in any Congressional campaign. A career focused on the 1 percent — or, worse, the .05 percent — will never earn them the confidence of the 99 percent. Indeed, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, so far it hasn’t earned them the confidence of any more than 9 percent.
So long as elections cost money, we won’t end Congress’s dependence on its funders. But we can change it. We can make “the funders” “the people.” Following Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, we could adopt a system of small-dollar public funding for Congress.
Here’s just one way: almost every voter pays at least $50 in some form of federal taxes. So imagine a system that gave a rebate of that first $50 in the form of a “democracy voucher.” That voucher could then be given to any candidate for Congress who agreed to one simple condition: the only money that candidate would accept to finance his or her campaign would be either “democracy voucher
Keywords
big, big, new york, power, independent, finance, democracy, answer, support, republic, put, people, time, party, york, news, long, end, system, public, imagine, voucher, accept, voucher, imagine, news, people, public, time, accept, answer, democracy, republic, finance, independent, long, new york, power, put, party, support, system, york
Τυχαία Θέματα
- Δημοφιλέστερες Ειδήσεις Κατηγορίας Blogs
- Σοφία Αλιμπέρτη: Που χάθηκε τα τελευταία χρόνια; Δείτε φωτογραφίες...
- Ξυπνάτε ρε!
- ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ ΤΩΡΑ : northaura Κροτου λαμψης τωρα Εγνατια κ Αγ Σοφιας. Ο κοσμος ήρεμος προς το παρον. Μερικοι τρεχουν
- Φιλοξενία αστέγων στα Μοναστήρια...
- ΕΠΕΤΕΙΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΤΕΧΝΕΙΟΥ
- Συμπληρώματα σιδήρου και αθλητές
- Λ. Αλεξάνδρας και Πανόρμου έχουν μεταφερθεί τα επεισόδια
- [ΕΛΛΑΔΑ] Τέντες: Αντισυνταγματικό το διάταγμα Παυλόπουλου
- Γάλλοι «αγανακτισμένοι» μαζεύτηκαν και χόρεψαν "ένα συρτάκι για την Ελλάδα"! (BINTEO)
- ΟΔΥΣΣΕΒΑΧ της Ξένιας Καλογεροπούλου/από 27.11
- Δημοφιλέστερες Ειδήσεις i-Reporter
- Τελευταία Νέα i-Reporter
- More Money Can Beat Big Money
- Ο Γ.Παπανδρέου να αναλάβει τις ευθύνες της ήττας του και να αποχωρήσει
- Χάος στη Συρία
- Με τον ίδιο σεβασμό, με το ίδιο δέος και τον ίδιο ενθουσιασμό!
- Εκτός Ν.Δ. ο Καμμένος
- Δευτερολογία Β.Βενιζέλου
- Ψήφος εμπιστοσύνης με 255 «Ναι»
- «Δάνεια» για να πληρωθούν τα χαράτσια!
- Πρωτοχρονιάτικος μποναμάς η εφεδρεία
- Τελευταία Νέα Κατηγορίας Blogs
- Λέτε να επαναφέρουν τις ποδιές στα σχολεία;
- Ο Mr Bodyline: «Δεν πλήρωνα το Δημόσιο για να μην απολύσω προσωπικό»
- Πώς η επέκταση του haircut μπορεί να οδηγήσει εκτός ευρώ τη... Γερμανία
- ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ ΤΩΡΑ : northaura Κροτου λαμψης τωρα Εγνατια κ Αγ Σοφιας. Ο κοσμος ήρεμος προς το παρον. Μερικοι τρεχουν
- Ψωμί-Παιδεία-Ελευθερία
- Στην Αθήνα αύριο οι σκληροί της τρόικα
- Στον εισαγγελέα προσέφυγε ο πρώην πρύτανης του Πολυτεχνείου Κρήτης μετά την επίθεση με αυγά
- «Η σημαία του Πολυτεχνείου δεν ανήκει σε καμία φοιτητική παράταξη»
- Η έντονη ακμή αυξάνει τις αυτοκτονικές τάσεις των εφήβων;
- ΟΔΥΣΣΕΒΑΧ της Ξένιας Καλογεροπούλου/από 27.11