Historic Opportunity For Campaign Finance Reform

"Should the Supreme Court agree with us, California will have a new tool to level the playing field between ordinary citizens and wealthy corporations and other big contributors."

In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a PIRG-inspired case that could open new doors for campaign finance reform.

Let me back up a bit. In 1996, CALPIRG proposed Prop 212, an initiative that would have lowered contribution limits, banned corporate contributions to candidates, required candidates to raise most of their money from within their districts, and capped candidate spending.

A criticism levied against the measure was that a cap on spending would violate a mid-1970s Supreme Court ruling on money, elections and speech. The case is Buckley v. Valeo. Before Buckley, more than 30 states had spending caps in place. In 1974, Congress enacted federal caps.

The Supreme Court ruling assumed that limiting candidate spending would reduce the public debate and would not lead to quid pro quo corruption.

The ruling never announced an absolute ban on spending caps, but it has been widely interpreted as if it did. Nearly all state and local spending limits were subsequently cancelled by repeal or court order.

With Prop 212, we had hoped to challenge the prevailing interpretation of Buckley, but didn’t get the opportunity. Only 49 percent of voters approved the measure. But good ideas don’t go away easily.

In 1997, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) led the effort to enact a similar law through the Vermont Legislature. It included low contribution limits, public financing and mandatory spending caps. Vermont’s law was challenged in federal court.

Here’s the good news. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decided in our favor, holding that spending limits can be constitutional if properly tailored. The Supreme Court announced it would review the case this term.

Recent Supreme Court rulings suggest we have a shot. For instance, the court recently upheld both the McCain-Feingold law and low contribution limits such as those in Prop 212.

It likely goes without saying, but we think limits on campaign contributions and spending represent two critical steps toward more democratic elections.

Our system is supposed to operate on the principle of one person, one vote. When the contributions of powerful corporations and other special interests dwarf those of ordinary citizens, this system is undermined.

Consider the pharmaceutical industry, which gave $18 million to federal candidates in 2004 alone. That $18 million helped ensure that dozens of candidates who favor the industry’s interests won their elections. When the Vioxx scandal erupted, Big Pharma didn’t have to bribe Washington office-holders to ignore calls for stronger regulation. The candidates that Big Pharma backed in the election were predisposed to support the industry.

Imagine a different scenario: one where nobody can give a candidate more than the average American can afford; where no candidate can spend more than a reasonable amount on his or her campaign; where money shapes politics less; where ideas and values matter more.

That’s the future CALPIRG wants for California and the nation. That’s why we joined other state PIRGs in submitting a brief urging the court to uphold spending limits. Should we prevail, California and all states will have a new tool to fix what’s wrong with our democracy.

Sincerely,

Steve Blackledge
Legislative Director