Tag Archives: campaign financing

We must amend the U.S. Constitution

The Citizens United ruling shows we must amend the U.S. Constitution

Our destiny – our laws and public policy – should be determined by people and the public interest — not by Wall Street banks and global corporations and their private interest.


In the Citizens United ruling (January 2010), the Supreme Court said that corporations have the same rights as persons to free speech, including political speech. This allows corporate entities to spend unlimited amounts to influence election outcomes and lawmaking. And they are doing it.

“One-person, one-vote” becomes “one-dollar, one-vote” — because of the power of money to purchase media, to influence election outcomes, and to influence laws with expensive lobbying.

  • Corporate influence in Congress is why Wall Street banks got big bailouts and bonuses.
  • It’s why health care insurance premiums keep rising and prescription drugs cost so much.
  • It’s why oil dominates our energy policy -and why corporate farms and food additives dominate our food supply.
  • And it’s why factories are closed when global corporate owners can make more profit overseas – regardless of the impact on local communities and families.

Can Congress overturn Citizens United by law?

No. When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, as they did in Citizens United, that takes precedence over any law or act of Congress.

Congress can try to bandage the damage within the scope of the Supreme Court ruling. But so long as corporate wealth shares power equally with people – protected as “free speech” through court rulings – campaigns, elections and lawmaking itself will be auctions, “for sale” to the highest bidder.

Public financing for campaigns would partially offset the power of private wealth. But only an amendment to the constitution is durable as “the final word” to protect American democracy.

Can states take action to limit undue corporate influence?

States can amend their constitutions to prevent undue influence by wealthy donors and political speech by global corporations. And they should. Corporate charters granted by states can specify what a corporation is allowed to do. Some states and local cities are passing laws that limit corporate activity to the economic sphere only, and prohibiting corporations from engaging in political electioneering.

But such state laws might be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court – using the same reasoning as in the Citizens United ruling – unless the Constitution is amended.

Constitutional amendments have been done before

In 1971, the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted by 3/4ths of the states – within four months! — giving voting rights to anyone 18 or older. It was motivated by popular uprising resulting from the Vietnam War era: “If I’m old enough to be drafted, I’m old enough to vote!”

Boston Tea Party (1773) — a response to undue corporate influence

Our nation’s founding began when the American colonies rose up against a corporate monopoly. The East India Tea Company used their wealth and power in the British Parliament to achieve tax preferences on imported tea – undercutting local business in the American colonies. In effect, this “WalMart-ization” of the tea trade led to the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the great American experiment in democracy.

Now, two centuries later, we have global corporations exercising their wealth and muscle in our democracy. It’s time once again to reclaim the vision and promises of our nations’ founding – and to amend the constitution to spell it out. People – not corporations, and not wealth and privilege – should determine our nation’s destiny!
And we must amend the U.S. Constitution to clearly say so.

__________________________________
Craig Salins is Executive Director of Washington Public Campaigns, www.washclean.org

Congressman, Can You Spare a Buck?

Despite 3 Congressional races in Washington State where Democrats were challenging Republicans last year, Washington’s six incumbent Congressmen ended the campaign year on Dec 31, 2006 with $2,693,833 in cash on hand.

It is not immediately clear why this is so because looking at the data on OpenSecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission shows that a total of $10,331,886 was raised by all Democrats running for Congress in Washington State in the last election cycle. And of the $10,331,886 raised, some $9,875,407 was reported as being spent by all 9 campaigns. The campaigns saw a net increase of $456,479 dollars as cash on hand not spent this cycle.

The startling truth is that the $2.7 million is the accumulated unspent cash on hand from all campaigns as of Dec 31, 2006, including the carryover from previous years. The 3 Democratic non-incumbent challengers had only $42,942 in cash left.

The $2.7 million represents some 21% of Democratic Congressional campaign money that was really available to be spent. Very little of this money came in after election day, but was available to help Democratic candidates.

One has to question why is such a critical year , when Democrats nationally were trying to regain control of the House and Senate, incumbent Democratic Congressmen in this state did not feel compelled, particularly by October, to spend everything they had available to help in the effort to regain control of Congress.

The November elections turned out to be a very close national referendum on Bush and the Republicans and the Democrats were picking up momentum. At stake was who controlled Congress and whether or Democrats would the Majority or Minority Party. Being the Majority Party meant having Democratic Committee Chairs, subpoena power and the ability to pass legislation. Being in the minority you weren’t even consulted by the Republicans on any bills.

This is not to say our six Democratic Congressman didn’t help but did they give it their all? Were they united in helping the Democrats fight to the finish or did they hold back? Except for Rick Larsen, they faced pretty weak opposition.

I will let you judge for yourself. Reported below are figures for each Congressman and their campaigns and the money raised and money spent helping other campaigns. Most of our Congressman helped in one form or another, just some did more than others.

Meanwhile in this state Democrat Darcy Burner and Republican Dave Reichert each raised just over $3 million in the WA CD-08 race last November. In the end Reichert narrowly edged Burner with 7341 more votes. Burner got 48.54% of the votes and Reichert got 51.46% of the votes.

Would Darcy Burner have won if she had received more money? We’ll never know but the issue is ripe for speculation. And what might a little more help for Peter Goldmark have done over in Spokane? Feel free to speculate.

Money raised by Democrats in Washington State in 2006 races ( most to least)
Darcy Burner CD-8 challenger………$3,060,927
Rick Larsen CD-2 incumbent……….. 1,456,945
Peter Goldmark CD-5 challenger… $1,194,878
Norm Dicks CD-8 incumbent………… $975,071
Jim McDermott CD-7 incumbent…. $888,559
Jay Inslee CD-1 incumbent………….. $883,376
Brian Baird CD-3- incumbent……… $834,003
Adam Smith CD-9 incumbent………. $739,885
Richard Wright CD 4 challenger…… $298,242
Cash on Hand – Incumbent Washington Congressman on Dec. 31 2006
WA CD-1 Jay Inslee, D………………………$803,362
WA CD-02 Rick Larsen, D…………………. $84,677
WA CD-03 Brian Baird ……………………..$784,972
WA CD-06 Norm Dicks, D…………………. $210,238
WA CD-07 Jim McDermott D……………. $422,848
WA CD-09 Adam Smith, D …………………$387,736
Total cash on hand 12/31/2006 …………….$2,693,833
Money raised by opponents to Democratic Incumbent Congressmen
Inslee opponent CD-01…………………. $43,733
Larsen opponent CD-02………………. $665,334
Baird opponent CD-03…………………. $150,237
Dick’s opponent CD-06………………………….. $0
McDermott 2 opponents CD -07 ……..$69,948
Smith opponent CD-09 …………………..$39,838
Total raised by opponents to 6 incumbent Congressman $ 969,090
So considering that the 6 incumbent Congressman raised some $5,777,839 plus had about $2 million carried over from previous years, and all of their opponents collectively raised less than $1 million dollars, how generous were they in helping the other three Democrats in Washington State challenging incumbent Congressmen?

In addition to helping directly, they could also have helped the effort to become the Majority Party in Congress by giving to the Washington State Democratic Central Committee (WSDCC) or to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) nationally or directly to the out of state Congressional campaigns of other Democratic challengers.

While these figures do not give a complete picture of the Congressmen’s overall campaign involvement, because Congressmen can also help by hosting fundraisers for others or help solicit contributions through other PACS, they do reflect on the issue of the $2.6 million surplus left in December. Below are these breakdowns.

Breakdown of Contributions
2006 Congressional Campaigns by Washington’s 6 incumbent Congressmen
Brian Baird
Burner ……………………………………………… $4600
Goldmark …………………………………………..$1000
Wright…………………………………………………….. $0
39 other Congressional Candidates ….. $43,500
DCCC ………………………………………………$75,000
WSDCC …………………………………………….$10,000
total $134,000
Jay Inslee
Burner ………………………………………………………$0
Goldmark …………………………………………….$3700
Wright ……………………………………………………….$0
39 other Congressional candidates……….$66,100
DCCC ………………………………………………$210,000
WSDCC ……………………………………………..$82,000
total $361,800
Rick Larsen
Burner ……………………………………………….$1000
Goldmark …………………………………………………$0
Wright ……………………………………………………..$0
other Congressional candidates ………………….$0
DCCC ………………………………………………$12,500
WSDCC …………………………………………..$20,000
total $33,500
Norm Dicks
Burner ……………………………………………..$2000
Goldmark …………………………………………$4000
Wright …………………………………………………….$0
3 other Congressional candidates…………$6000
DCCC……………………………………………$381,000
WSDCC ………………………………………….$61,100
total $454,100
Jim McDermott
Burner………………………………………………… $500
Goldmark……………………………………………….. $0
Wright ……………………………………………………..$0
other Congressional candidates ………………….$0
DCCC……………………………………………………….$0
WSDCC……………………………………………$25,000
total $25,500
Adam Smith
Burner …………………………………………………$2000
Goldmark……………………………………………..$2500
Wright ……………………………………………………….$0
27 other Congressional candidates………….34,500
DCCC ………………………………………………$125,000
WSDCC ……………………………………………. $46,000
total $210,000
What stands out to me is the Congressional delegation did not make a full scale assault on winning back Congress because they ended the year with some $2.7 million in cash on hand. They did not even maximize out contributions directly to the 3 Democratic challengers running against Reichert, McMorris and Hastings.

In fact they seem to have done a complete boycott of the Wright/Hastings race. What is unfortunate about this is that the lack of Republican ethics was a high factor in voter’s decisions to oust the Republicans from Congress. Hastings was the Chair of the House Ethics Committee. His inaction and deliberate efforts to do nothing should have made him vulnerable to defeat.

In addition I am disappointed in Jim McDermott’s bottoming out in helping Democrats with fundraising. He is in the safest Democratic seat in the state, had a tepid race by weak opponents, and should have been able to help raise money for other Democrats. I have heard the excuse before that it’s his lawsuit with Boehner over the cellphone calls that is holding him back but that has been going on 8 years. At what point do you say McDermott’s decision to continue the fight is hurting his ability to help the larger Democratic cause in our country?
The issue goes for all the incumbents though. They all are easily able to raise money. Why do they think it was O.K. to end the campaign year with some $2.7 million in the bank? Will they be doing the same next year? Don’t they see anything wrong with this when it could have been used to help elect more Democrats?