Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Rick Hubbard is a retired attorney who lives in South Burlington.
We the people and our democracy are in trouble. Overwhelming evidence shows that the way our federal campaigns are financed today results often in Congress favoring wealthy contributors by enacting legislation, regulations and policies to favor their interests over those of most Americans.
This increases cynicism and non-participation, which undermine our democracy while moving money, lots of it, out of our pockets and into their coffers. We all pay, whether we are conservative, moderate, liberal or progressive.
In the 2008 presidential election cycle, the cost of all campaigns for House, Senate, president and conventions totaled about $5.3 billion during the two-year period. This amounted to about $2.65 billion a year, representing less than $25 per American household. These figures continue to rise each election cycle.
But what doesn’t change much is that only a tiny fraction of American citizens contribute at all directly to any federal candidate or political party. The money from those who do contribute, plus mega-money from outside groups, allows favored candidates, or those working on their behalf, to buy much bigger megaphones to amplify their free speech and voice it repeatedly in the national media to overpower and drown out the free speech of less well-financed candidates.
It’s in our interest as citizens to hear equally and fully from a range of candidates so we can make an informed decision. It’s also in our interest to motivate our federal politicians to pass laws, regulations and policies that benefit the majority of us instead of their mega-wealthy contributors.
To accomplish this we must change the way we finance our federal political process.
We spend $925 billion a year on defense to protect America. Why not spend $3 billion a year to protect and enhance our democracy?
Consider: For the equivalent only $25/year per household, we could publicly finance the entire annualized cost of all federal campaigns today. Money from all of us would motivate Congress to place our voice and interests first in creating legislation, policies and regulations.
Here’s just one example where that $25 investment could produce average savings of $275/year per household:
Pharmaceutical companies produce brand name drugs and sell them here for high prices but abroad at much lower prices. It used to be legal for firms abroad to mark up these same drugs and sell them back into the U.S. at lower prices, saving us lots of money. In 1987 Congress made this illegal after intense lobbying and campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry. The profits of our pharmaceutical industry immediately soared and have remained higher most years than for any other industry.
Consequently we pay more in the U.S., often 25 percent or more, for brand name prescription medications than we’d pay if we purchased them from, say, Canada.
If Congress reversed this one decision and the $330 billion in forecast 2012 U.S. pharmaceutical sales fell by only 10 percent, this would save, on average, some $275 per year per household. These savings alone would finance the entire cost of our federal elections for the next 11 years.
Talk about a return on investment for citizens!
But beware proposed solutions that would focus only on a part of the problem while leaving the entire problem unaddressed.
In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Citizens United that corporations have a right to spend unlimited money influencing elections. This decision is deeply unpopular. Several proposed constitutional amendments, including one by our own Sen. Bernie Sanders target closing off this huge source of money.
But such an amendment would address only an important fraction of the all the campaign money from the mega-wealthy which today undermines our democracy. It still would not fix the underlying problem.
A complete fix involves, at a minimum, having all money to finance our federal election processes be contributed by, and controlled by all citizens.
