CED Money in Politics Forum: CED poll of business leaders released; Remarks of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer
I would like to thank the Committee for Economic Development and its President, Charlie Kolb, for holding this forum today.
A decade ago, CED provided a powerful and pivotal business voice in the successful effort to enact the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. CED’s return to the campaign finance reform issue is a very important development for the major campaign finance reform battles that lie ahead.
A sea change in American politics is unfolding in the 2010 elections.
As a result of the disastrous Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, one of the worst decisions in the Court’s history, this is the first election in more than 60 years where corporations and labor unions are free to make campaign expenditures in federal elections.
And it’s also the first election in more than 40 years where hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions are being spent in federal elections.
If anyone doubts that much of what is going on today stems from decisions made by the
Prior to decisions by the
That is because the campaign finance law shredded by the
History tells us that secret money in elections breeds corruption and scandal.
As Albert Hunt, executive
"A prediction: The U.S. is due for a huge scandal involving big money, bribery and politicians. Not the small fry that dominates the ethics fights in
"It is axiomatic in politics that without accountability there is abuse. This year, there is a massive infusion of special-interest money into
History also tells us that as secrecy begets scandal, scandal begets reform.
In the 1970s, the Watergate scandals resulted in the creation of the landmark presidential public financing system, which served the nation well for most of its existence until it became outdated as Congress failed to modernize it and now has to be repaired.
The Watergate scandals also led to the enactment of essential limits on contributions to candidates and parties, which were upheld by the Supreme Court as necessary to prevent the corruption of our officeholders and government decisions.
In the 1990s, the soft money scandals resulted in a $500 million corrupt soft money system and led to the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, which banned unlimited, soft money contributions to the national parties.
Similarly, the unfolding scandalous role that secret contributions are playing in the 2010 elections and the greater dangers that lie ahead will open the door to important new campaign finance reforms.
No one should make the mistake of thinking we can solve the current corruption problems by opening the door to far greater corruption in the form of unlimited or much larger contributions to the parties.
That would recreate the system of legalized bribery that Congress correctly ended by banning unlimited contributions to political parties and that the Supreme Court reaffirmed as constitutional just this year.
As former Republican Senator Warren Rudman testified in supporting the ban on soft money contributions to political parties:
Individuals on both sides of the table recognize that larger donations effectively "purchase" greater benefits for donors.
He also said "Make no mistake about it." "Large soft money contributions" …"affect outcomes."
Those of us who support strong and effective campaign finance laws are in a rough patch right now, in large part because we are facing a hostile Supreme Court for the first time since Common Cause founder John Gardner created the modern campaign finance reform movement in the early 1970s.
However, anyone who thinks that campaign finance reform supporters are going to fold up our tent and go away does not understand the reform community and does not understand the history of campaign finance reforms.
There is going to a public backlash after this election against the huge sums of secret money that have sloshed around in the 2010 elections. And this is going to open the door to building a broader and more diverse coalition of voices throughout the country for reforming the way we finance our elections.
CED can play a pivotal role in building the coalition, as it has in the past.
Major campaign finance reform efforts will be undertaken by concerned citizens and groups committed to a democracy with integrity and to winning the battle against the corrupting influence of big money on officeholders and government decisions.
The American people are not going to stand for secret contributions being spent to influence their votes.
In this Congress, we came within one vote of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to enact new disclosure laws that would end secret contributions flowing into federal elections. If there is an extended post-election session, the battle to obtain one more Senate vote for the DISCLOSE Act will continue. Otherwise this effort will begin again immediately in the new Congress.
In the end, we need to build the financing of our presidential and congressional elections around small donors whose contributions are enhanced by public matching funds.
If the voices and interests of average citizens are to be heard in our democracy the role and importance of small donors in financing our elections must be greatly enhanced and the role of influence-seeking larger donors, bundlers and outside spenders must be greatly diminished.
We have won these battles before and we will win them again.
