Tweet
Antonin Scalia thinks that everyone should be blamed but him for the hash that the Citizens United decision, among other things, has made of the campaign finance system.
Super PACs have raised more than $30 million just three races into the 2012 presidential race, according to the website opensecrets.org, run by The Center for Responsive Politics. TV advertising alone in South Carolina, which is voting Saturday, is estimated at $12 million, or nearly $27 per voter when calculated using the 2008 Republican primary turnout numbers [...]
Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn’t fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.
“If the system seems crazy to you, don’t blame it on the court,” Scalia said, during a discussion in front of South Carolina lawyers that lasted for more than an hour.
Well, he’s never taken responsibility before, so why should he now? All he did was break the system, it’s not up to him to fix it! I mean, for all the faults of the old campaign finance system, at least corporations weren’t able to spend freely in elections. And the creation of SuperPACs to accommodate Citizens United has made it far more friendly for wealthy individuals, who could spend on third-party ads previously, to step up their spending.
But to the extent that anyone in a position of authority has stepped up and tried to change the system as it exists today, it’s someone who hasn’t even yet held elected office. Elizabeth Warren inked a deal to effectively ban third-party ad spending in their hotly contested Massachusetts Senate race.
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) and his Democratic rival, Elizabeth Warren, have reached a groundbreaking agreement to deter super-PACs and outside groups from dominating their Senate race with millions of dollars of ads, Brown said Monday [...]
The pact signed by Warren and Brown on Monday imposes a financial penalty whenever an outside group intrudes on the race. If an outside group places a television or Internet ad supporting a candidate, the candidate would be required to donate 50 percent of the cost of the ad to a charity of the opponent’s choosing within three days. Negative attack ads would also trigger the penalty, with the candidate whose rival is attacked being forced to forfeit half the cost.
Also included in the accord are written requests signed by both candidates to broadcast station managers imploring them to voluntarily enforce the pledge.
While outside groups are not legally bound by the agreement, the goal is to create a disincentive strong enough to convince the groups that by wading into the race, they do more harm than damage to their preferred candidate.
Ultimately, with the FEC functionally dead as an institution and the outside money sloshing around, the only way to impose any order on the campaign finance system right now is through non-aggression pacts like this. Maybe that changes in the future with legislation like the DISCLOSE Act, or in the long run a Constitutional amendment banning corporate personhood. (I don’t agree with Mark Schmitt that Move to Amend is a fool’s errand and a distraction. In fact he acknowledges at one point that movements to pass amendments that are expressions of principle would have residual benefits in setting a long-term vision, something that almost never happens on the left. Moreover, banning corporate personhood has benefits well outside the campaign finance arena.)
For the time being, we have opportunities like what Warren and Scott Brown offered. That won’t work in every race; most politicians are shameless enough to take the hit on “sleazy” outside ads while knowing full well that negative ads work no matter where they come from. But in a race with at least one good government candidate who knows how to work the media, this kind of thing can happen. And it will be a nice template for others to follow.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Typo…
… should be something like “do more harm than good”
And while the non-SPAC-pact is well meant just wait until the <1%'s puppeteers do a "man in the middle" attack to bring down one candidate regardless of what either candidate wishes or has signed.
Like? And what would “banning corporate personhood” mean, exactly?
I thought I was just unable to figure out the Amend2012 website but apparently it’s true – they want you to support an amendment that hasn’t been written. “Please vote for my Amendment to Do All Good Things and No Bad Things!” “Wow, that sounds great! How does that work?” “Well, I’ll figure that part out later – it’s not important now!”
The positive right to vote, though, I think would be much more valuable, in itself and in the side effects of the campaign.
I still haven’t seen good answers to some basic questions when it comes to worrying about campaign spending:
* Why does it cost so much – where does the money go? I assume TV but maybe not.
* Aren’t the people who bear ultimate responsibility the voters? “He spend so much money I has no choice!”
* Why is public financing a better way to go than some kind of revived Fairness Doctrine equal access?
While I applaud Ms. Warren ethical intention, I think she is a bit naive to enter into an agreement like this with Brown or any GOP.
First of all, any agreement with a monetary penalty gives Brown the advantage since he has about 4x the cash on hand. Second, What is to stop Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS from spending on a marginally pro-Warren ad forcing her to cough up limited cash. Finally, what will stop the Roves of the GOP from dumping all their millions into ads on the last three days of the race? Any evil or dastardly thing you can think of has already been considered by a GOP operative. And unlike those with ethics, they will be willing to do them. They already know how they will undermine this agreement and are just biding their time until then.
I hope I am wrong, but history says otherwise.
My thoughts exactly.