W-a-a-a-y Too Much Money!

As the 2010 mid-term elections swing into their final weeks, it is nearly impossible to watch television, listen to the radio or answer the telephone without someone yammering at you about this or that candidate. Any reasonably informed person is going to conclude that all this chatter is costing a lot of money. Where does all this money come from? Is this seemingly bottomless pit of bucks a sign that our electoral system and, hence, the leadership elected there from, is hopelessly corrupt?

Well, not so fast. Here’s a little perspective that I hope can help overcome some of the doomsday predictions and conspiracy claims. As a multi-decade, close-in observer of the Washington scene, I believe that the feared corruption doesn’t come close to justifying you, your family, and your co-workers avoiding the voting booth on November 2. Or, engaging even more in our civic life after the votes are counted.

America has some significant laws on its books that seek to limit the possibility that too much money from too few sources can have a truly corrupting influence on our election process or elected officials. Here’s a brief listing of some of these limitations:

• A free press, and now blogosphere, of all political stripes that are watching “the enemy” with eyes keen on any significant corruption in an election.

• Those dread political action committees (PAC): There are surprisingly low limits on how much money an individual PAC can contribute to a U.S. House or Senate candidate ($10,000 per election cycle--$5,000 in the primary; $5,000 in the general). Sorry, but if a campaign costs $3 million, contributions of $10,000 are not going to “buy” any important votes.

• Rich people: There are also surprisingly low limits on how much money rich people (other than rich candidates themselves) can contribute per election. Only $2,400 to individual Federal candidates. Only $5,000 to a specific PAC. A maximum of $30,400/year to a national political party. A biennial maximum of $115,000 to all of the entities listed here.

• Who cannot, by law, contribute directly to Federal candidates to fund their campaigns? Foreign nationals. Federal government contractors. Corporations and unions. Contributions in the name of others.

• The definition of “contributions” in the cases above includes the value of 1) donated items and services, 2) fundraising tickets and items, 3) loans and loan endorsements.

“Bob, you’re crazy,” you say. “What about big oil, and those unions, and the Supreme Court decision that has everybody in a tizzy? What’s going on? Where’s the beef?”

While it is true that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, that money is not going directly to the candidates. That money is going to independent organizations with ideological convictions, or single-issue obsessions, or other concerns. These independent organizations buy political advertising and pay for bloggers, stalkers, pamphleteers and or volunteers who do campaigning. By law, these organizations cannot blatantly coordinate their activities with an individual candidate’s campaign operation.

Most of these independent expenditures account for most of the “heat and light” coming over the airways or knocking on your door. While it’s a great fund-raising method, there is no certainty that their actions are going to guarantee a future-elected candidate’s vote—to the exclusion of that candidate’s common sense, personal political convictions or in a horse-trade with another Member of Congress to gain their support.

Besides, for nearly every one of these organizations, there is a second organization raising money and emotions, by taking the opposite position in their excessive advertising, pamphlets or door knob hangars. If no such opposing organization exists or is underfunded, then the people that agree with the second organization’s perspective need to get excited, donate money or volunteer…and then vote.

That’s not corruption, that’s how a democracy works…like it or not.