Many who are disillusioned by the American electoral system often think the solution to all our woes is to “get money out of politics.” That sounds appealing, but there are practical considerations that make it very difficult to accomplish. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that money spent to advocate for candidates or positions is, itself, a form of speech that is constitutionally protected. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it has been the precedent of several decisions over the course of many decades; it is not likely to go away anytime soon.
Campaign finance laws attempt to minimize the influence of donors by capping the amounts that are given to candidates and parties, but rather than keep money out of the process, it simply pushes it into the hands of those who are free to spend it any way they like. Political action committees and other independent groups are now able to accept donations without limits, and they don’t have to disclose who their donors are. The goal of campaign finance laws has been to limit the influence of high-dollar donations and hold a candidate’s feet to the fire, but the real-world result is a system still greatly influenced by big money but which holds very few accountable.
It could be the worst of all possible worlds.
In a new research paper, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has put forward an innovative solution. Its approach is to remove many of the restrictions on political parties and thereby divert the money now going to super PACs back into party structures that are far more transparent and responsive to individual citizens than the independent groups that currently dominate the political landscape. They also advocate making public financing available to parties, along with removing restrictions that currently prevent candidates from coordinating directly with parties working on their behalf.
It’s true that this kind of proposal doesn’t get money out of politics. Instead, it acknowledges the hard reality that money cannot be removed from the process, so the best way to avoid corruption is to ensure as much transparency and accountability as possible. Yes, parties will be able to accept large sums of money and spend it on the candidate of their choice, but the voters will be fully aware of who benefits from those decisions, and they can make an informed choice as to how that ought to affect their voting behavior.
It’s not a perfect solution, surely. But certainly it’s preferable to the anything-goes environment in which we now find ourselves. It’s an idea that merits further consideration.