Only The Rich Get A Say In Presidential Politics

There is a federal law that limits the amount of money anyone can donate to a presidential candidate. No individual or PAC or other entity can give more than $2500 directly to a candidate, and the person or entity giving the money cannot do so in secret -- the candidate must tell the Federal Election Commission (FEC) who gave them money and how much money they gave. This is a good law because it eliminates the perception (or the reality) that a candidate could be bought by a super-rich individual or group.

Unfortunately, while that campaign law is still on the books, it is now a meaningless law. In practice, there are no longer any limits on how much money any individual or organization can give to a presidential candidate.

We have the United States Supreme Court to thank for this. In their recent Citizens United vs FEC decision, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to limit the amount of money any independent organization could spend to support a candidate, party, or political idea. The operative word there was "independent" -- as these organizations could not be part of a candidate's official campaign (and direct contribution limits to a candidate's campaign was left in place).

But nothing is more devious than a political campaign organization (of either political party), and it didn't take these people very long to recognize that the Supreme Court had given them a huge loophole to campaign finance law -- an easy way to get around the limits on campaign donations. And they have started to seize upon this loophole with wild abandon.

All a candidate had to do was "let" some of his/her supporters form a "super-PAC". This PAC would have no official connection with a candidate's campaign organization, but all of the money it raised would be spent to support the candidacy of one particular candidate. And the best (or worst) part is that anyone could donate an unlimited amount of money to this "independent" super-PAC -- and they could do it in secret.

Now some of you with few functioning brain cells may actually believe these super-PAC's are truly independent of a candidate's campaign organization, and don't get their marching orders from the candidate's handlers. If you really believe this then I have some great ocean-front property here in Amarillo that I'll sell you real cheap (and I can also get you a great price on some of America's most famous bridges). While there may not be any paperwork connecting the super-PAC to the candidate's campaign organization, the super-PAC's are "independent" only in the most superficial meaning of the word.

The first two candidates to take advantage of the loophole provided by the Supreme Court were Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. "Friends" of these two men created super-PAC's which have no purpose except to promote the candidacy of their candidate. Both have received millions of dollars in donations to their super-PAC's -- and much of that money was from individuals who had already given the maximum amount to the candidate's campaign organization.

Now two other candidates have had "friends" create super-PAC's to support their candidacy -- Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. And we can expect other serious candidates to quickly do this also. In today's political climate, a candidate simply cannot compete without the unlimited (and secret) donations to a super-PAC dedicated to their candidacy. Here are the major super-PAC's so far:

Priorities USA (Barack Obama)

Restore Our Future (Mitt Romney)

Citizens for a Working America (Michele Bachmann)

Make Us Great Again (Rick Perry)

And it looks like Rick Perry is going all in for the secret unlimited campaign donations. Although Make Us Great Again is his largest PAC, he also has five other PAC's dedicated only to his election as president -- including Americans for Rick Perry and Veterans for Rick Perry.

The sad fact is that the small donor has no voice in political presidential campaigns any more. Even if you are able to give the maximum amount of $2500, do you really expect any candidate to listen to your opinions when they have donors giving hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars?

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the Constitution for the good of all American citizens. But what their decision in Citizens United vs FEC did was sell it to the highest bidders, and send us much farther down the road to trading our democracy for a third-world type plutocracy.