Views » March 4, 2009

The Audacity of Reform

By Joel Bleifuss

For some pundits, President Barack Obama’s spectacular fundraising success during the 2008 general election has removed campaign finance reform from the top of the reform agenda.

Yet, as far as the influence of big money in politics goes, this past election was little different from previous ones. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, candidates for federal office raised a record $5.3 billion. About 72 percent of that money came from people connected to business interests, with Democrats getting 55 percent of the corporate pie and Republicans getting 45 percent.

No surprise there. Money flows to those in power.

Leading the pack in 2008 were the bankers at Goldman Sachs, who doled out at least $5 million to federal candidates. Citigroup employees came in second at $4.2 million, and the folks at JPMorgan Chase third, at $4.1 million.

What do the financiers from these three companies expect to get for their $13.3 million? It’s hard to say. Members of Congress “play for pay” with more subtlety than former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Yet their game is the same.

Take the bank bailout vote last October. Overall, House members who voted for the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act have received 41 percent more money from the financial sector since 1989 than their colleagues who opposed giving the no-strings-attached blank check to banks. In the Senate, lawmakers supporting the bailout raked in 139 percent more than their “no”-voting colleagues.

How much stronger might the economy be today if our Senators and Representatives hadn’t counted on the financial sector to help bankroll their campaigns? If in November 1999, they hadn’t voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, thereby deregulating the banking industry?

There is reason for optimism. A system of public campaign financing—like that proposed by the nonpartisan Public Campaign (www.publicampaign.org) and others—has so far helped bring “Clean Elections” reform to seven states.

In the 111th Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act, which is based on the successful state model, will be introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and in the House by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.). The Democrats are in control of Congress and the White House, so perhaps it has a chance to pass.

“With powerful majority party leaders in both chambers of Congress supporting robust public financing, increasing pressure on lawmakers to spend their time raising money, and a public demanding change in the way Washington does business, reformers have the opportunity to profoundly transform the current system,” says Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign.

In the 110th Congress, then-Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored this legislation. On Aug. 2, 2007, speaking to the Senate, he said, “If we’re serious about change, we need to have a real discussion about public financing for congressional elections. Because even if we can stop lobbyists from buying us lunch or taking us out on junkets, they’ll still be able to attend our fundraisers—and that’s access the average American doesn’t have.”

We changed residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but if we don’t change the way our elected leaders are bought and sold, our chances of seeing real change will come to naught—no matter how audacious our hopes.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  There is so much to be set right after 8 long and terrible years, that one hardly knows how to prioritize.

  But I’d say Joel is right here—this is a key issue and if we don’t get the money out our politics (not to say politicians) we will forever be allowed to exist according to corporate whims.

  And I mean that literally.

  Posted by lbyland on Mar 4, 2009 at 1:09 PM

  Unfortunately, the Obama campaign was a missed opportunity and a huge setback for campaign finance reform. It started with two leading candidates—both Obama and McCain—who claimed to favor reform, pledged to use public financing and work within campaign spending limits. McCain kept his promise. Obama didn’t, and went on to run the most expensive political campaign ever in the history of mankind.

  Obama spent more than the 2004 Bush and Kerry campaigns combined. Three-quarters of a BILLION dollars! And it was spent on the kind of marketing and branding that until recently has been the stock-in-trade of mega-corporations like The Gap and Audi and Delta Airlines. (And I didn’t just pull those names out of thin air—Obama’s branding agency, SS+K, has worked with exactly those companies, and is also partly owned by the Creative Artists Agency, which is the premier talent management company for A-list celebrities. Did anyone really believe that Obama’s money was being spent on giving good speeches?)

  The advertising industry now expects that from this point forward, they’ll be handed two cash cows every four years—one from the Republican side, and another from the Democratic. It’s a reasonable expectation. And each candidate will need to raise the billions of dollars to pay for it. The end result will be that ordinary Americans, especially the poor, will be even further disenfranchised from the political process.

  Campaign finance reform isn’t just removed from the top of the reform agenda—it’s OFF the agenda. Don’t expect Obama to revive something that he never supported in the first place.

  Posted by marcello09 on Mar 4, 2009 at 3:14 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured A Spectre is Haunting America
Orange Fades to Black
Real Sex Ed Returns

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
  Across the country progressive groups are mobilizing to support legislative initiatives, but to… morePosted on July 9, 2009
• Buy Back Our Government
  Porn rentals, duck islands and moat-cleaning are among the frivolities British members of… morePosted on June 11, 2009
• A Specter is Haunting Dems
  Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) had every reason to free himself from the wing… morePosted on May 12, 2009
• Bailout Bandits
  In these days of "bank stablization plans" (bailouts for fat cats) and "overseas… morePosted on April 16, 2009
• Building Utopia
  A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx.Posted on April 13, 2009