Citizens Multiplied

Individual donations seem like so much chump change in a sea of corporate, union and mega-wealthy-elite funded SuperPacs, so why bother? How can individuals matter if a particular race has drawn the clear focus of the biggies? While most pundits agree, the well-heeled tend to favor the lower taxes and fewer regulations that form a cornerstone of the Republican Party, the battles royal in and among Democrats are worthy of scrutiny.

Because of what many believe was manipulative redistricting, the Congressional districts of former allies, Democrats Brad Sherman and Howard Berman (pictured above) right here in a strategic part of Los Angeles, have been merged into a single House seat. So these two Congressmen with long tenures in the House are at each other’s throats in a brutal campaign. Because the seat is in LA, local SuperPacs are steering this battle.

“The Congressional race between two incumbent Democrats in the redrawn 30th District in California is one of the most expensive in the country, but it is hardly unusual in reflecting the influence of big donors. Howard Berman has raised $3.5 million, while his opponent, Brad Sherman, raised $2.7 million. For both candidates, only 1 percent of their money came from donations under $200.” New York Times, August 22^nd. And beware of candidates who tell you stuff like “90% of my donors have made contributions of less than $200.” Indeed 90% of the number of individuals and entities may have contributed less than $200, but they can still add up to a total of only 1% of all money raised! Kind of makes the point that elites rule and the vast body politic just doesn’t matter.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of unbridled donations from the power elite (as long as not directly controlled by the candidate) in the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, upheld in 2012 in a state (Montana) challenge under local corruption laws. The decision has statistically skewed the level of political contributions overwhelmingly since that decision toward rich and corporate interests, whose spending has skyrocketed, at the expense of average voters.

As the rich get richer, with the 1% controlling 42% (and rising) of this nation’s wealth, it is clear that their agenda is triumphing at the expense of the middle class. “[A new Pew Research Center] study combines an analysis of recent government data with a public opinion survey to paint a picture of the nation's middle class, defined as those with annual household incomes in 2010 between $39,000 and $118,000 for a family of three… By this definition, Pew found that at the beginning of the decade, the middle class included 51% of all adults, down from 61% in 1971.

The Pew study found that some of the shrinkage in the middle class came from people moving into the upper-income tier, which represented 20% of the nation's adults in 2011, up from 14% in 1971. The lower-income group rose to 29% of all adults, up from 25%... But the money only went in one direction, [said Paul Taylor, the Pew Research Center's executive vice president]. Over the same period, only the upper-income group increased its share of the nation’s overall household income and now accounts for 46% of that total, up from 29% in 1971. The middle class garnered 45% of the total, down from 62% four decades ago. The lower-income group took in 9%, down from 10%... Since 2000, the median income for America's middle class has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487, the researchers found. But net worth plummeted over that period, with the median declining by 28%, erasing two decades of gains.” Los Angeles Times, August 23^rd. The canary in the coal mine is dying.

In what may go down as the worst decision by the United States Supreme Court in over a century, Citizens effectively marginalized “the little guy” and shifted even more power to a tiny elite with an agenda that often doesn’t mirror the values and wants of the majority. Coupling popular social issues with the reduction of taxes and regulations, making them seem like a natural “bundle,” business interests now totally trump individual concerns in such SuperPac campaigns.

Some have postulated that, short of reversing Citizens, stringent disclosure requirements, not banned by the Supreme Court decisions, are the best way to mitigate the impact of this decision. But how many voters really read the “disclosures” on any form of advertising? How effective would this really be? Another solution? Multiply the impact of the small donors with federal or state matching funds. “Based on the very successful New York City campaign finance system, the plan would match contributions of $250 or less at a 5-to-1 rate with public funds. If someone gave $100 to a candidate, the program would add another $500 in public funds, magnifying the importance of the small donation.

“The plan — proposed by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog group — would be voluntary, but participating candidates would have to accept a $1,250 limit on all contributions, half the current level of $2,500. There would be a ceiling on public matches to candidates and a $50,000 limit on the amount a candidate could contribute to the campaign but no limit on spending.” NY Times. How about leaving the $2500 intact? What’s the real difference? It still may be a drop in the bucket in some campaigns. For example in the Sherman/Berman race above, 5 x 1% = 5%.

Yup, you can also see the objections and screams coming from all quarters. “We have a huge budget deficit; we can’t be funding new expensive federal and state programs.” But what is the price of turning the United States from a democracy into an oligarchy? How long can our political system survive if it really only serves power elites? Aren’t we polarized enough already? Remember, there are 300 million guns out there spread across the 50 states. We really better figure this out before it is too late.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the concern for the survival of my country is very near and dear to my heart.