Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve May, a licensed independent clinicalรขยย social worker who is the former national director of state affairs for the Hemophilia Federation of America. He was a candidate for the Vermont House in 2016 and is a member of the Selectboard in Richmond, where he resides.
[C]itizens United permitted political money to be treated like speech, which had started earlier under another legal case, Buckley vs. Vallejo. Citizen’s United and Buckley created the environment where vast amounts of political money were permitted to flow through political action committees and other funding organs, transforming the campaign finance system into a cesspool.
The Russian government’s attempt to subvert the 2016 presidential election is possible only in a system where limitless amounts of political money are permitted unfettered into the political system. The Supreme Court in Citizens United held that political spending is free speech. It’s not the facilitation of a message or the message by which it is conveyed. Rather, it is in fact, the message itself. Said another way, the more money you have, and are willing to commit, the more speech you deserve.
The Russians apparently took the principle behind โmoney as speechโ to its logical extreme to subvert our democratic values. The Russian governmentโs direct involvement in 2016 is still subject to multiple investigations. What we do know as of today is that a coordinated effort of some kind was hatched, involving the purchase of social media advertising on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter with the intention of influencing certain states in the run-up to the November 2016 elections.
Russia is a country with which we, the United States, have competed across a Cold War for 40 years and have viewed as a global rival that attempted to subvert our election laws. The fact that the only thing that made their behavior problematic is that they are a nation-state and not a private citizen should be hugely problematic. It should not be lost on anyone that an entity used a loophole to subvert the democratic process. This is the end result of being OK with cascading dark money flowing through a broken campaign system.
While campaign financing and the White House continues to be top of mind for many of us, letโs not forget our very own made-in-Vermont campaign finance saga involving 2014 Progressive/Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Dean Corren. Correnโs appeal continues to make its way through the legal system. For those of you who forgot, Corren accepted campaign finance money to run his campaign. In the closing days of the campaign, Corren was included in an get-out-the-vote email blast as part of the Democrats’ coordinated campaign. This email included all Democratic candidates. Then-Attorney General Bill Sorrell, a Democrat, sued Corren for violating the campaign finance law for having been included in a coordinated campaign activity. Sorrellโs act has thrown the Vermont campaign finance system into complete chaos. Sorrell argues that the email was of a certain value and puts Corren out of compliance because it should have been effectively treated by the campaign as a paid advertisement. Sorrell won at trial court. Correnโs appeal is to be heard in federal court later this month by the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York.
The Corren case and the Russia saga bookend a larger issue. Money is corrosive in politics. Campaign financing in 2017 is a form of regulated bribery. The role of money in our current system is to incentivize โgood behaviorโ by opinion leaders. Under this system is there any way that constituents can be more important than the forces fueling re-election, especially when one believes that their own re-election is the best way to serve the public?
We have created rules because many of us find it to be unseemly, but there are alternatives which would give the system back to individual citizens. Consider the model used in Connecticut and Maine. Both states have moved to public financing systems for races from the legislature right on through to governor. Local candidates should have to demonstrate some viability by gaining contributions from Vermont residents, then maybe the government could match monies raised and there might even be a cap on the match based on the population of the seat contested. Other states have done this, including Arizona, Connecticut and Maine. New York City, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon, all do it for their city council and mayor races. South Dakota gives every one of its citizens โdemocracy vouchers.โ The vouchers in South Dakota are equivalent to campaign money. The vouchers will be distributed to every citizen with the idea that citizens can spend them however they like, on one candidate or spread it around to many; and the vouchers will be redeemable only by candidates willing to abide by the campaign finance system there. Washington is in the midst of implementing a similar system.
Vermont’s campaign finance system is completely inadequate. For starters, we now have an August primary. That was not true when the law was passed. Sliding the primary ahead a full month creates a competitive disadvantage for a clean money candidate. With an August primary there isnโt enough time to raise the money necessary to fuel a competitive campaign. Clean money candidates under the law now are forced to wait until the middle of the legislative session before announcing their intention. By that point, the field is already formed and March would constitute a relatively late entry. Also, fundraising through the summer is challenging for most candidates, because itโs a time when most voters detach from political activity in favor or other family engagements.
In addition, Vermontโs campaign finance system only applies to the governor and lieutenant governor races. At a minimum, we should extend some kind of campaign finance system for the rest of the statewide office holders (attorney general, auditor, secretary of state and treasurer) and all judicial elections. That would be a significant step towards diminishing the role of money in Vermont politics. But in an ideal world, some form of campaign financing and matching funds should be extended to every legislative race at the earliest practicable date. Certainly, some will raise the question of cost with regard to such a system, but the cost of freedom is well worth the price we would pay to establish a clean money, public financing system.
Vermonters have an abiding interest in seeing that some meaningful campaign finance system remains in place. Politics canโt simply be a race to see who has the most campaign cash and biggest megaphone. Campaign finance laws remain a meaningful check against one person or group attempting to hijack an election through their spending in a given race. We all have an interest in seeing that balance against unregulated spending in campaigns be curbed.
