As you probably know, this is shaping up to be the most expensive campaign season in the history of this country. It might have been that way anyway, but this was assured by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Since that decision there have been numerous super-PACs created to avoid the limits on campaign donations -- and these super-PACs have collected many millions of dollars -- much of it in secret and easily eclipsing the donations to the individual candidate campaigns.
The money is coming from rich individuals, corporations, and other organizations -- and there is neither a limit on donations or or the amount that can be spent by these super-PACs. Most of the money is going to Republican-oriented campaigns, but the Democrats have jumped onto the super-PAC bandwagon also (and are trying hard to catch up). The effect of all of this is to minimize the voice of the ordinary citizen, while amplifying the voices of the rich and corporations in our electoral system.
This is not a good thing (since it is anti-democratic) and most Americans would like to see the Citizens United decision changed and the super-PACs eliminated. Now there is a new organization that wants to work toward the goal of eliminating super-PACs -- and oddly enough, it is itself a super-PAC.
The new super-PAC is called Friends of Democracy. The founder is Jonathan Soros (son of George Soros). Soros expects the super-PAC will raise around $8 million, and he wants to spend that money opposing candidates (of either party) who are against campaign reform. The super-PACs leaders are going to pick 10 to 15 House members whose "records and public statements have not been supportive" of campaign reform (i.e., "citizen led" elections), and they are going to spend their money to defeat those candidates.
In addition, they hope to found a sister super-PAC that will pick out some "heros" of campaign finance reform, and spend money helping them to be re-elected. I think this is a great idea, and I personally hope they can find members of both parties to oppose (or help), since there are "blue dog" Democrats who are just as opposed to campaign reform as most Republicans.
The government of this country should be chosen by the people -- not by the few rich people and corporations who can afford to buy a politician. Hopefully, these new super-PACs can help to restore some sanity and democracy to our electoral process.
Jimmy Carter, who certifies elections worldwide, said twenty years ago that he would be unwilling to certify US elections because the people with money have an unequal access to the public microphone, so this is not really anything new. Certainly "Citizens United" excerbated the corruption of our elections, but it was already there.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the voting public has it within their power to render "Citizens United" utterly irrelevant. All we need to do is not vote for the candidates who are receiving the "benefit" of that decision and vote for candidates who are not being advertised by big money. We are absolutely capable of doing that.
But we will not do that. We will continue to complain about "Citizens United" and will continue to elect candidates who "Citizens United" tells us to elect because we cast our votes based on how many paid advertisements we have seen while watching "American Idol."