Federal law prevents coordination
between candidate committees and Super PACs. Luckily for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
and John Sarbanes (D-MD), co-sponsors of a new campaign finance bill (H.R.
20), the same does not hold true for public-relation blitzes. The legislators
and their allies are directing an organized messaging campaign to convince the public
of the need for this law.
H.R. 20 dovetails with the perpetual umbrage
directed at the Supreme Court for its Citizens United v. FEC decision. The
case’s anniversary is now habitually synchronized with legislative “solutions”
to the “problem” of greater and more varied voices in the political
marketplace. Whether under the guise of “transparency,”
“shareholder
protection,” or “citizen
empowerment,” those that know best assure us they are at the ready with a
government fix to our supposedly helplessly corrupt system of funding campaigns
and political advocacy.
The bill would create an essentially publicly funded campaign
system. Key components include a tax credit and public money multipliers for
small donations. A third component, described in an op-ed
published by the co-sponsors, is particularly misleading:
Provide candidates with an opportunity to earn
additional resources in the homestretch of a campaign so that the voices of the
people are not completely drowned out by super political action committees and
other dark-money interests. In the wake of Citizens United, this kind
of support is critical to ensuring that citizen-backed candidates have staying
power.
When the authors state candidates will “earn additional
resources,” they mean exactly the opposite. Those candidates would simply fill
out a form with the FEC or IRS and have slab of taxpayer pork wired to their bank
account.
The use of the phrase “[Super PACs] and other dark money
interests” is also deceptive. “Dark money” does not fund Super PACs. They are
merely unconnected (“independent
expenditure only”) PACs. As such, they must regularly identify and
report their contributors and expenditures to the FEC.
Finally, how would one determine who is a “citizen-backed
candidate”? By law, candidates have no control over Super PACs. Given the
influx of these entities on both
sides, it is difficult to imagine a race of any import that wouldn’t
receive some Super PAC support.
Various leftist factions have no need for such inconvenient
details, however. H.R. 20’s public backers include Democrat donors, liberal
nonprofits, and campaign finance reform groups.
The donors published a supportive letter
released last week. In it they state their noble intention to lessen their own
influence for the good of the ordinary citizen. A write
up about the publicity stunt suggests they are also weary of constant phone
calls from politicians asking for their money.
The Sierra
Club, among other left-leaning groups, is also on board. The famed
environmental outfit is worried about big-money political influence. But why?
First, the group has its own Super PAC, which spent $1.2
million dollars in 2012 trying to influence various elections. Second, radical
California environmentalist Tom Steyer was 2013’s largest Super PAC contributor
with a brisk $11
million. And that doesn’t count the $8.5 million he dropped in Virginia to
help elect the Sierra Club’s preferred
choice for governor. Regardless, if the Sierra Club or any other groups want a
louder political voice, that is a matter between them and their members, not
the American taxpayer.
In fact, H.R. 20 proposes nothing new. It apes dozens of
previous proposals designed to sap the private sector of a locus of power in an
area where the public sphere is shrinking. Publicly financed presidential
campaigns are now a relic.
And Americans do not seem particularly eager
to foot the bill for those already adorned with large staffs and countless perquisites.
Fortunately, because of the current political makeup of
Congress, this bill is going exactly where it should: nowhere.
By Paul Jossey
No comments:
Post a Comment