Issue 1 – Follow the Money (Citizens United and Campaign Finance)

Democracy in the US is being affected by the relaxation of restrictions on the extent to which political actors with deep pockets – corporations, wealthy individuals, political action committees (PACs) – can use their financial resources to disproportionately influence both elections and policies.  Some politicians, including Ted Cruz, welcome the availability of this money, while others, such as Beto O’Rourke, believe that it enables the buying and selling of elected offices and public policies, with the advantage going to corporations, wealthy individuals, and PACs.

In politics, the more money you can raise, the higher the likelihood that your campaign, for office or policy, will prevail.

Both major political parties, mindful that today’s political tailwind can become tomorrow’s headwind, gradually enabled legislation that would maintain some sort of equilibrium in the extent to which money could influence elections.

The most recent such measure was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), put forward by John McCain (R) and Russell Feingold (D) and passed in 2002.  The BCRA addressed two issues: 1) the use of “soft money” that sidesteps federal spending limits, and 2) the use of “electioneering communications” that endorse specific candidates while seeming to be doing general issue advocacy.

On 21 January 2010, the Supreme Court decided, by a thin 5-4 margin, to reverse provisions of prior decisions (including BCRA).  This was the “Citizens United” decision

Citizens United ruled that First Amendment rights of free speech that had hitherto applied to individual citizens could not be denied to “associations of citizens“.  This effectively placed such “associations” – corporations, unions, PACs, wealthy individuals–with access to vast financial resources on the same playing field as ordinary citizens making contributions from their household incomes.

 Citizens United enables both conservative and liberal corporations, unions, and organizations of any kind, including their PACs, to use money to overpower the messages of other electoral participants with fewer resources.   This does not provide a fair marketplace for ideas in the American tradition.   It does, however, ensure that wealth and privilege continue to be given disproportionate advantage in civic dialogue.

Both Republican and Democratic elected officials benefit enormously from the cash that these “associations” and their PACs now wield.  The current leadership of neither party has shown any inclination to resist this money.

PACs by definition have a specific objective in mind – a politician who is taking money from a PAC becomes beholden to it and her/his independence is thereby compromised.

You may be concerned about the undue influence of George Soros.  Or, you may be concerned about the undue influence of the Koch brothers.  The concern is identical, and the solution is the same in both cases –PAC money undermines a fair and American democratic process and needs to be removed from the electoral equation for both sides.

 Ted Cruz supports the Citizens United decision, and is on record as having stated that “money absolutely can be speech” while putting forward a bill that allows large donors and special interests to directly contribute to candidates.

Beto O’Rourke stated the following on 24 October 2017: “I will make a commitment to you right now that I won’t be a part of supporting, helping, fundraising, or a tacit endorsement of super PACs or people who try to work in an unaccountable way outside of the political process.”

Texas Tribune reports that through 31 July 2018, Beto has raised $23.6 million, none of which comes from PACs.  In the same period, Ted Cruz has raised $15.6 million, of which $4.3 million, or 28%, is from PACs.

Federal Electoral Commission data show that so far in 2018, almost $900K has been contributed for Ted Cruz (or against Beto O’Rourke) by “independent spenders”, of which almost $600K has been contributed in the first week of September – after it was perceived that there was a real electoral threat to Cruz.  It can be reasonably anticipated that this dramatic upsurge in PAC funding will continue as anxiety about the election result mounts.

 Ted Cruz will not bite the financial hands that are feeding him.  Beto O’Rourke has categorically rejected PAC money for his own campaign and can be counted on to support the same approach if he is elected Senator.

If you share a concern that the democratic process is damaged by allowing political parties – ANY political party – to have unfettered access to big-donor funding, then on this issue Beto O-Rourke is clearly the better choice.

This is not a Republican vs. Democrat, or conservative vs. liberal issue – it affects everyone on any side of any issue.