Monthly Archives: May, 2014

We Have Answers from U.S. House Candidates in New Jersey

Okay – the quick and easy version of this blog.

 

We’ve got info from New Jersey candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives about their views on money in politics and amending the constitution to save the Republic.

 

See the NJOCU U.S. House candidate “Ask” Results

 

…or even quicker and easier, See the Summary

 

And now for the detailed version of this blog, in which we brag about how much work this was and how cool we are to have taken it all on!

NJOCU recently contacted candidates for the House of Representatives in the state of New Jersey.  We asked for the candidate’s views on money in politics as well as the candidate’s strategy, if any, for fixing the problem.  Formed in the wake of Citizens Untied, NJOCU has always seen a constitution amendment to overturn at least portions of that decision as necessary. For us, without an amendment, campaign finance regulation, lobbying reform, closing the revolving door, safeguards against cronyism, and a government of, by and for the people will always be under threat from politics and the courts.  There’s just too much evidence that the lure or possession of power will draw out the exploiters and the misguided.

We attempted to reach all the candidates; six were un-findable.  We sent them background information on the issue and an “Ask.”  We pointed out that the NJOCU coalition represents 27 statewide business associations and community and political organizations, and over 17,000 New Jersey petition signers determined to get big money out of politics.  NJOCU successfully spearheaded the passage of amendment resolutions in 13 NJ municipalities along with resolutions on both sides of the NJ legislature.  In other words, the New Jersey Legislature has already asked Congress for an amendment.

We asked each candidate for an endorsement of a constitutional amendment (by bill number if possible) or at least some legislative alternative that the candidate preferred.  If they didn’t see a solution or the need for a solution, then we respectfully asked them to explain that position.

We had to treat a non-response to our Ask as a non-endorsement of the amendment campaign and indeed of any other approach to fixing the problem of money’s corrupting influence over democracy.  How much we were able to offer our own knowledge of this far reaching topic to candidates, who are undoubtedly considering many issues right now, depended mostly on the availability and responsiveness of the candidate.  We are 100% volunteer-based so we could only reach out as far as the schedule and our resources allowed.

Our volunteers did attend in-person meetings with some candidates (our thanks to the candidates as well).  We also offered dialog over the phone and by email.  We made a real effort to show the candidates other solutions when they weren’t sure about the amendment idea.  In many cases we showed them the American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA) and the Government By The People Act (GBTP).  And finally we offered, upon request, the roughly 17,000 signed petitions in paper or PDF form.  Or if they wished, we showed them petition signers from only their relevant district.

THE RESULTS

 

BACKGROUND:

Every candidate was shown What’s Wrong with Money in Politics, three examples of amendment bills now in Congress, the list of states requesting an amendment proposal from Congress and the formal Ask document.  Beyond that, the background information varied according to what feedback the candidate provided to us.  Here’s an example of our Pitch.

What’s Wrong with Money in Politics is a list of effects that spring reliably from the moneyed approach to political campaigning and the effects of money aggregators like unions and lobbyists.  Note that the effects of money are counter-productive for both sides of the political spectrum.

Outside Spending, Outsized Influence (PDF) shows a who’s who of outside interests trying to manipulate New Jersey congressional races.  It’s immaterial which side they each represent, because in any election the most influential side can change, depending on which interest groups decide to meddle and for what objectives.  Nor is the problem limited to national politics.  Indeed, it may prove more significant at the state level, where local money is insufficient to turn back big outside moneyed interests who descend on state legislative races.  First we saw an outside group sue the state for having campaign finance laws.  Super PAC sues N.J. over contribution limits.    Then we all watched the money flow in from outside.  As the legal suit demonstrated, New Jersey as a state is forbidden by federal courts from truly regulating its own elections.

The Supreme Court has codified much of the problem by declaring that the expenditure of money is a form of free speech.  We believe that the right to speak one’s true convictions and the privilege of amplifying one’s own views to a level that drowns out all others are two very different things.  The court has also codified the idea that legal fictions, organizations and money aggregators can uniformly claim the same rights as that of a natural person and citizen.  There is already evidence of foreign nationals using their affiliations to inject money into election campaigns in the USA.  There are numerous other pitfalls to the concept.  In the Citizens United case, the court also settled into the view that election and lobbying laws can only address explicit quid pro corruption.  This is not merely wrong, but absurdly unrealistic.  If white collar crime were held to this standard, using a method that didn’t succeed 100% of the time would form a valid defense.

But it gets worse.  Recently the court declared it legal for one donor to give millions of dollars spread over the entire Congress or perhaps more likely over one party.  The court rejected precedent which held that the appearance of corruption IS corruption.  Handing over money to every congress person on a collection of key committees definitely looks like the purchase of influence.  Many voters in our democracy, upon seeing this, deeply question the system’s integrity.  But the court says it’s legal.  Thus the problem worsens even as many are trying to fix it.  For all of these reasons and several lesser concerns, NJOCU and many groups support at least one constitutional amendment to deal with the corrupting influence of money in politics.

In the 113th session of Congress there are two legislative strategies for amending the constitution.   Under the first of these strategies, two bills each propose one of two needed amendments.  One of the two amendments clarifies that persons and people in the constitution refer to actual persons and people, not artificial legal constructs.  The other amendment asserts the responsibility and authority of the people’s government to regulate campaign finance.  The second strategy combines both of these provisions into one bill that proposes one amendment.  As such, these two strategies represent three bills on each side of the congress, i.e. in the House and the Senate, or six bills total.  These two strategies have the greatest support in Congress (the most sponsors and co-sponsors).  For this reason these bills are explicitly mentioned in the NJOCU “Ask.”  We believe in a vigorous debate on how to best amend the constitution, but these bills form a good starting point.  There are other amendment proposals.  United 4 the People provides a complete list.

The New Jersey State legislature in 2012 passed AR86 and SR47 asking Congress for a constitutional amendment to deal with this problem.  15 other states have done similarly and within New Jersey 13 municipalities have joined the chorus.  The current list of local and state entities that have passed such resolutions.

There are also legislative steps that might be taken without a constitutional amendment.  The two most notable are the American Anti-Corruption Act (PDF) and the Government By the People Act (PDF).  The AACA directly regulates lobbying and revolving door practices and funds elections with vouchers.  The GBTP Act allocates public campaign funds that are so substantial that outside moneyed interests are disincentivized from competing.  The formula is still based on citizen support and does not level the playing field artificially.  Both bills have been vetted as constitutional even by current standards.

87% of ordinary people are angry at all the big money coming into our elections.  NJOCU, like so many Americans, wants the SCOTUS decisions that are responsible for this deluge of money overturned.  But even after amending the constitution, the working solution will be implemented as a law.  With an amendment, the law will be simpler and more effective, but it will still be a law.  NJOCU therefore supports the best laws we can possibly implement as soon as is possible, both before and after an amendment is passed.

At least 2/3 of nearly every identifiable political group in America is opposed to the corrupting influence of money in politics including such diverse groups as the Tea Party and MoveOn.org.  Republicans and Democrats both poll in opposition to the increasingly influence of money over policy.  Small business owners are one of the most concerned at 90%.  A recent Gallop poll showed that when money in politics was included among options it polled as the country’s second most important issue behind jobs.  It’s time to start talking, thinking and acting on this long endured distorting influence over our democracy.