POLITICO Interview with Democracy 21 President: Outside Cash in 2012
Arena Chat
October 30, 2011
David Mark: POLITICO over the past week examined the role of money in politics. Video series guests included former DCCC Chairman Martin Frost, former FEC Chairmen Michael Toner and Brad Smith, and Trevor Potter, lead lawyer for the McCain ’08 campaign.
To round out the discussion I chatted with Democracy 21 President and CEO Fred Wertheimer, the longtime advocate for tighter regulation of money in politics.
David Mark: Welcome to Arena chat, this is David Mark, Senior Editor at POLITICO.
The topic today, money and politics, and with that I’m joined on the phone by Fred Wertheimer, President and CEO of Democracy 21 and a longtime advocate for campaign finance reform. Thank you for joining us.
Fred Wertheimer: Happy to be here.
David Mark: This is the first presidential election following the Citizens United case. Are we already seeing evidence that it’s having an effect on the race, bringing more money into politics than before?
Fred Wertheimer: Well it’s bringing more, certainly more money and much more dangerous money into politics. Citizens United changed the landscape of American politics. It opened the door to unlimited money, corporate money and secret money sloshing around in our elections. And as in the past, this kind of money will surely result in corruption and scandal down the road.
David Mark: One of those vehicles that you refer to are super PACs, these bodies of campaign coffers that, in theory, can get unlimited donations. Do you see these being more inherently corrupting than the traditional donations for $2500 or less to individual candidates or $5000 to traditional PACs?
Fred Wertheimer: Well, here’s what the Supreme Court said in Buckley v. Valeo, they said that corruption is inherent in a system permitting unlimited contributions to candidate, even when the contributions are fully disclosed. Now, these contributions aren’t going directly to candidates but the idea that because in theory the money is being spent independently it does not have the capacity to corrupt federal officeholders and government decisions simply makes no sense. A five million dollar expenditure by a corporation surely has the ability to buy influence over the candidate being helped. So, the new candidate super PACs are extremely dangerous. The use of tax exempt organizations to launder unlimited secret money into our elections is extremely dangerous, and we are in a brand new situation that we haven’t faced for some time. However, I think it’s important to keep an aspect of this in perspective. We really now have two campaign finance systems. The system involving candidates and parties will result in five to six billion dollars being spent in this election, subject to contribution limits and full disclosure. This outside spending system will involve 500 million to a billion dollars in unlimited money, and in many cases, secret money being spent outside the candidate, party system. That is going to be a relatively small percentage of the total amount spent, but it’s going to focus and be targeted in ways to have a laser beam kind of impact. Some people are arguing that, well, the answer here is to remove the contribution limits from candidates and parties. That would be an unmitigated disaster that would open us up to a system of pure, legalized corruption and influence-buying directly with federal officeholders.
David Mark: I just want to interject, if you talk to those members on Capitol Hill who work on campaigns, they say that some of these consequences you’re describing, these unlimited, kind of secretive sources of money were somewhat predictable based on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of a decade ago that …
Fred Wertheimer: That’s just dead wrong because the candidate super PAC, secret money being laundered in large amounts through tax-exempt organizations, that did not happen until the Citizens United decision. I mean, it’s the Citizens United decision that has fundamentally undermined the nation’s campaign finance laws. This is not a product of McCain-Feingold, it’s the product of a Supreme Court that either did not know what it was doing, or did not care and as a result is in the process of doing extraordinary damage to the nation’s anti-corruption campaign finance laws.
David Mark: With that, we’re going to have to end it. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Fred Wertheimer: Sure.
