Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer Testifies in Support of H.R. 1 at the House Administration Committee

Today, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer appeared before the House Administration Committee in support of H.R. 1, the comprehensive democracy reform bill introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and co-sponsored by 225 other House Democrats. (Watch the video here.)

Wertheimer also submitted written testimony on behalf of Democracy 21 in support of H.R. 1 that addressed the dangers to democracy caused by big money in American politics, and the reforms that are necessary to address those problems. (Read the written testimony.)

The testimony focused on the campaign finance reform provisions in H.R. 1, and in particular on the essential proposal by Rep. Sarbanes to create a small donor, public matching funds system for House races.

The testimony also supported the other important reforms in H.R. 1, including essential voting rights and redistricting reforms, as well as reforms to strengthen ethics rules for all three branches of government.

In the testimony, Wertheimer called for campaign finance reforms:

• To provide an alternative way for federal candidates to finance their campaigns;
• To close the gaping disclosure loopholes for groups that spend unlimited, secret contributions in federal elections;
• To strengthen the rules prohibiting coordination between candidates and outside spending groups, including individual-candidate Super PACs; and
• To reform the dysfunctional, feckless Federal Election Commission.

Wertheimer asserted that the small donor, matching funds system for federal candidates contained in H.R.1 is essential to stopping Washington corruption:

H.R. 1 provides an alternative system for presidential and congressional candidates to finance their campaigns by creating a small donor, public matching funds system.

We should be clear about this.

Influence-money corruption in Washington will not stop – it will only grow worse – without a new way for federal candidates to finance campaigns.

Without an alternative way to finance their campaigns, federal officeholders and candidates will remain trapped in the existing influence-money system dominated by wealthy donors, lobbyists, bundlers and special interests.

According to the testimony, the new financing system provided by H.R. 1 would:

• Allow candidates to run for office without being dependent on or obligated to big money or special interest funders;
• Empower ordinary Americans by making their small contributions more important and valuable to candidates;
• Greatly reduce the power and influence of big money funders by freeing candidates to run competitive races for office without the need for their financial support; and
• Create opportunities for new candidates to enter the political process and run competitive races.

Wertheimer’s testimony stated:

The Supreme Court decision in Citizen United (2010) set the stage for the explosive growth of Super PACs and opened the floodgates to allow massive amounts of unlimited, influence-seeking contributions back into federal elections. These are the same kind of contributions that led to the Watergate campaign finance scandals of the 1970s and the “soft money” scandals of the 1990s.

In the last four elections, Super PACs that sprang up in the wake of Citizens United raised $4.88 billion in unlimited contributions to spend in federal elections. During this period, the top 10 individual donors alone contributed $1 billion to Super PACs, an average of $100 million per donor.

The testimony noted:

Ordinary Americans today have good reason for believing that the extraordinary wealth of relatively few Americans drowns out their voices in our elections and buys influence over government decisions.

The small donor financing system in H.R. 1 would empower ordinary Americans to counter the influence of political money from billionaires and millionaires unleashed by Citizens United.

The testimony pointed out that “the success of the presidential public financing system for more than two decades makes a powerful case for enacting the small donor, matching funds system in H.R. 1.”

Wertheimer’s testimony stated:

In the first six elections run under the presidential public financing system (1976 to 1996), each major party nominee used the public financing system to finance their primary and general election campaigns. During this period, all but four major party candidates also used the system to finance their presidential primary campaigns.

President Ronald Reagan benefited more than any other candidate from the system, using it to finance his three presidential campaigns, including two successful runs for the presidency. […]

In the six presidential elections run under the presidential public financing system from 1976 to 1996, Democrats and Republicans each won three times and challengers beat incumbents three out of six times. The system had neither partisan nor incumbency bias. […]

[F]or more than three decades the Republican and Democratic National Committees used public funds to help pay for their national conventions. Apparently, the Republican and Democratic parties had no problems in using public money for their political activities.

All of these presidential candidates and the national party committees voluntarily requested and accepted public funds to spend on their campaign-related activities.

According to the testimony:

The presidential financing system began to break down only when dramatic growth in the costs of presidential campaigns outstripped the funding and spending limits of the presidential system.

Congress never updated and modernized the presidential system. H.R. 1 will revitalize the presidential public financing system, which remains on the books as law.

The presidential public financing system has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011).

The testimony also supported the DISCLOSE Act provisions included in H.R. 1, which are modeled after similar provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) and which were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC (2003).

The testimony stated:

The provisions close gaping disclosure loopholes by which wealthy donors and special interests in the last four elections have given more than $800 million to non-profit groups in secret, unlimited contributions that were spent to influence federal elections.

Unlimited, secret contributions made to groups which spend money to influence federal elections are a particularly dangerous means for corrupting government decisions. Without disclosure of these contributions, there is no way for the public to hold donors and Members of Congress accountable for the corrupting influence those large contributions may exert on government decisions.

The testimony supported the provisions in H.R. 1 to eliminate individual-candidate Super PACs and noted:

In 1974, Congress enacted limits on contributions to candidates. These limits were held constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley as necessary to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption.

Today, these contribution limits are being eviscerated by individual-candidate Super PACs – Super PACs that raise and spend unlimited contributions to support one candidate.

The testimony continued:

[I]n practical effect, these individual-candidate Super PACs operate as a dedicated “soft money” account of a candidate’s campaign, rendering meaningless the limits on contributions to the candidate.

According to the testimony:

While we cannot end all Super PACs as long as the Citizens United decision stands, we can shut down individual-candidate Super PACs by legally recognizing the reality that they are coordinated with the candidate they support. In so doing, the expenditures of these individual-candidate-Super PACs would become in-kind contributions and would be limited to $5,000 per year.

The coordination provisions of H.R. 1 “address the reality that individual-candidate Super PACs are inherently coordinated with the candidates they support and should not be permitted to serve as vehicles for eviscerating candidate contribution limits.” These provisions will shut down individual-candidate Super PACs.

Finally, the testimony points out that “The Federal Election Commission is a failed, dysfunctional agency that does not enforce or properly interpret the nation’s campaign finance laws.” According to the testimony:

The FEC reform provisions of H.R. 1 create a new framework for properly enforcing and interpreting the campaign finance laws. This section of the bill modifies the agency’s structure and operation in a small number of key ways in order to deal with a chronic and fundamental problem for campaign finance laws.

The testimony concluded:

H.R. 1 tackles fundamental problems that are dangerously undermining our democracy and our constitutional system of representative government. The faith of the American people in their government and officeholders is dangerously low. We are at a moment in history when these problems must be addressed and solved.

Those who may think this is an impossible task should keep in mind the words of Nelson Mandela, who said: “It always seems impossible, until it’s done.” Mandela knew from what he spoke.

The health and integrity of our democracy is on the line. The fight for H.R. 1 is a fight that must be won.

Read the full testimony here.

###