Oct. 25, 2014 SIGN IN | REGISTER
Enter to Win Roll Call's 2014 Election Contest!

Answers for Our 'Byzantine' Campaign Finance System | Commentary

The word of the day at last week’s Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing, Dollars and Sense: How Undisclosed Money and Post-McCutcheon Campaign Finance Will Affect 2014 and Beyond, was “byzantine.” At least two witnesses and two senators used it in their stated remarks to great effect, as the definition of byzantine is a system that lacks clarity, is outmoded and is excessively complicated.

In the case of this hearing on transparency in money in politics, there couldn’t be a more apt descriptor for our out-of-date, patchwork system of required disclosures of election spending, as recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have riddled the system with even more holes, making it still harder for the public and shareholders to determine the sources of outsized campaign spending by elites and corporations. Some who accuse the system of being excessively complicated argue that the regulations should be loosened. But that is exactly what the Roberts court has forced upon us, and the results are a more complicated system and even less clarity.

This hearing presented us with an all-star line-up of witnesses, from the third-longest serving justice on the Supreme Court — the Honorable John Paul Stevens — to Ann Ravel, who sits on the Federal Election Commission, to Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and Steven Colbert’s attorney, to Norm Ornstein of American Enterprise Institute and more. They came together to share their thoughts on how best to address the systemic problem of dark money (which has been so exacerbated by our Supreme Court via the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions) and to discuss what remedies might be needed.

This hearing — and the solutions suggested in it — is incredibly timely, as just today CQ Weekly reported on the creation of yet another new joint fundraising account to take advantage of the McCutcheon decision. The Republican Victory Fund is one of more than a half dozen similar committees, all featuring multiple players raising big money together, that have sprung up since the decision.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, an individual could contribute up to a total of $123,200 per election cycle to all federal candidates and committees combined, with sub-limits of $48,600 to all candidates and $74,600 to all political committees and parties. Following McCutcheon, wealthy donors can contribute up to $5.9 million to federal candidates, parties and committees — a dollar figure limited only by the number of candidates running for office. And thanks to Citizens United, we have had four years of unlimited super PAC and 501(c)(4) spending under our belts, and a new understanding of the havoc undisclosed spending can wreak on the public trust in our system of democracy.

Congress needs to take swift and decisive action to mitigate the damage caused by the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions. Citizens across the country, of every political stripe, are infuriated with the unlimited and undisclosed money rapidly drowning out the public voice in elections, and are demanding reasonable limits and full disclosure of money in politics.

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?