Contact
Money and politics should not mix
Eric Griego
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding political spending by corporations and unions was more than just a blow to democracy. It was a blow to states’ rights. All across the country, lawmakers are scrambling to determine the extent to which their local campaign financing laws are still legal.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens derided the ruling for not only striking down a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, but also because, “It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.”
Here in New Mexico, pending legislation that would limit the contributions businesses, lobbyists and state contractors could make to political campaigns is likely dead before its first committee hearing. No longer do New Mexicans have a say in how much influence big money can have in state elections. Even President Obama, in a highly unusual move for a sitting president, criticized the decision in his weekly address, saying, “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.”
Cities and states across the country have been moving toward implementing so-called ‘clean elections’ by allowing candidates the option of accepting public financing in lieu of private contributions. Albuquerque has adopted public financing for city offices and the rest of the state should follow suit.
While public financing is still an excellent way to keep campaigns free from the more direct influence of money, the Supreme Court’s decision somewhat circumvents this effort by allowing special interests to take their biases and agendas straight to the people. The ruling allows corporations to “buy” candidates with promises of positive campaign ads to help elect them or threats of an unlimited stream of attack ads to help defeat them.
Either way, the big losers are the people.
What the nation’s highest court has effectively done is allowed our elections to be commercialized. Just as corporate America deluges us daily with messages about what products to buy and which services to hire, this decision will allow the corporate marketing of candidates. Instead of: “this product will make you sexier/happier/more wealthy,” it will be: “this candidate is (or is not) sexier/smarter/more likable.”
This shilling of candidates will most certainly make the American political landscape even more virulent and acrimonious than it already is.
Campaigns should be about issues
Political campaigns should be about issues. For those seeking another term, elections should also be about promises kept or broken. Candidates should not win or lose because of money or who looks best on TV or has the snappiest sound bites. Candidates should be about ideals, integrity and fidelity to the common good.
The more money we allow into the campaign process, the more that process is twisted and the more “the good of the many” is overrun in pursuit of “gain for the few.”
Likewise, governing should not be about personal power. Governing, as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, should be about empowering the people. That is done by investing each individual, rich or poor, with an equal voice – their vote. The death knell for democracy will sound the day we allow money to become more powerful than the vote. This Supreme Court decision brings that day a little closer.
I am not ready to throw my hands up in defeat, however. I believe the people still wield the ultimate power in this country when it comes to our statehouses and our nation’s Capitol, our governors’ mansions and our White House. Democracy requires vigilance, but I believe New Mexicans are up to the task.
Now we must do more than fight for our right to decide who represents us in Santa Fe and in Washington. We must fight for the right to make our decisions without the cacophony of those who would influence our votes to further their own ends.
Griego is a state senator representing southern Albuquerque, the East Mountains and Northern Valencia County. He is the former chairman of the state economic development commission and former president of the NM municipal league.
6 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The only way to counter this disaster of a ruling is to pass a Constitutional amendment, or two or three. I have been proposing:
(1) Donors to campaigns and PACs must be US registered voters (real people!). For-profit and non-profit organizations (that’s both corporations and unions, y’all) may not be active in politics except through formation of a PAC. The AMOUNT of a donation to a candidate or PAC shall be limited to one week’s gross salary at the minimum wage (currently $300, or 40 hrs times $7.50), and the AMOUNT candidates can donate or loan to their own campaign shall be limited to 10 times that amount (all per election cycle). The total amount any one registered voter can donate to either candidates or PACs shall be limited to 100 times one week’s gross salary at the minimum wage. (Otherwise there will just be a proliferation of PACs.)
Putting the limits in terms of the minimum wage keeps them in line with what REAL people have to spend, not billionaires like George Soros (much as I agree with his politics) or Warren Buffet, who only pay about 17% tax on their income, because it is mostly capital gains income from investments.
(2) Give the House of Representatives the option to vote to retire two of the SC justices (EXCLUDING the two most recent appointees) each time the presidency changes hands and also parties. (This might encourage older justices to retire sooner.)
(3) Term limits, say 12 years, for all SC justices.
No mere law is going to help. It has to be in the constitution to stop the corporate takeover. (Same applies to restrictions on banks, look how those laws put in place during the 1930′s have gradually been eliminated.) Besides, the current SC would just strike it down.
Griego talks a good talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. Why don’t you go up against the Supreme Court and try to get a reversal instead of talking about how unfair they were?
Agree with Santa Fe Observer and David… Griego conveniently forgets about left wing billionaire George Soros and his 527 money. Just shows how much the left really hates American business in spite of their rhetoric about job creation and helping middle class families. What a crock!
Well again, if anyone thinks the Supremes “opened the floodgates” for “special interest” money to influence campaigns and government they just must not be living in America and/or paying attention to what is and has been going on here for years. The latest example is in Oregon, where the SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, etc. funded a $6.5 million TV ad blitz to convince people in Oregon to allow their taxes to be raised drastically. Their campaign tried to convince them outsiders and just the filthy rich would pay, wrong of course, but it was successful. The opposition (those evil corporations like Nike) could only muster about $2 million. Of course the irony is that the taxpayers paid for the unions to do this, since they fund the salaries of the government employees to pay union dues, and thus to tax them even more. Amazing, but nothing will change after the Supremes ruling on these types of things.
Not surprisingly Senator Griego is wrong once again. He’d rather have his extreme left non-profit organizations, who do not have to disclose their donors, playing in the political field. The SCOTUS ruling was right on and will help shine more light on political money, rather than forcing the money behind closed doors.
This ruling allows more freedom of speech, unlike what Senator Griego would prefer, which is to have campaigns in the hands of a few elite far left groups
The Supreme Court recently ruled that dollar now has a stronger voice than any single American.
Eric Griego is hardly the messenger for a campaign against the Supreme Court.
and the Pot calls the Kettle black…
Eric Griego owes his election to a third party, which refuses to disclose it’s donors.