Voting & Democracy In The News

The most corrosive effect of big money in politics is not that it can buy access to legislators and influence their votes. While this happens, most officeholders are honorable and hardworking public servants. But we must also consider the influence of money on government overall, not just on individual elected officials.

The biggest scandal in our campaign finance system is not bribery-by-donation, but the influence of moneyed special interests on our elections and, specifically, their influence on who runs for and wins elective office. Raising the current maximum donation above $500, as a bill in the state Legislature would, only aggravates this problem.

The candidate who raises the most money wins most of the time. The majority of campaign money comes from a tiny fraction of the public, representing moneyed interests and the wealthy. Campaign contributors, quite logically, support with their votes and donations those candidates who share their views. Thus, candidates who align themselves with the views of the special interests and the rich win, and those who oppose those policies lose. Also, virtually nobody except moneyed interests and the richest 1 percent of citizens gives $500 to a candidate, so raising the $500 cap just enhances their influence over elections even more.

One argument in favor of the higher cap is that it reduces the time legislators have to waste on raising campaign cash, a laudable result. But isn't it more important to decrease the influence of big money on who gets elected, which raising limits does not do?

The median income in Massachusetts in 2005 was $52,354. A single $500 contribution, the current contribution limit, represents 1 percent of that annual income. If there were three or four candidates you were interested in, you'd have to contribute almost 4 percent of your annual gross income to participate at the maximum level. As it is, the vast majority of people don't make campaign contributions. By definition, limits are designed to cap something - in this case, it's the distortion of our democracy that comes about when only the wealthy and powerful fund the candidates.

At the federal level, a record-setting $2.7 billion was spent in the 2006 mid-term elections, and more than half of that money came in large contributions from a small group of wealthy donors in the top 1 percent income bracket. And the candidate who spends the most money wins most of the time. The correlation between money spent and winning is even higher than the correlation between incumbency and winning. Thus, the preferences of those with big money, often with special interests at stake, about whom they want to see elected and what policies promoted get much more weight than the preferences of ordinary citizens.

Another argument in favor of a higher limit is that it would make it easier for challengers to raise money to take on incumbents, because a few of their friends would be able to give $750, or $1,000, rather than just $500. Perhaps. But according to Brenda Wright, a lawyer and election-reform advocate, a study by Anthony Gierzynski, a campaign finance expert at the University of Vermont, shows the opposite is true.

Wright notes, "When professor Gierzynski looked at challengers in House races over seven elections, he found that challengers had more success against incumbents in the years contribution limits were lowest." In any case, higher limits will surely make it much easier for well-connected incumbents to raise more.

If we're not going to implement the public financing reform approved by Massachusetts voters in 1998, perhaps we should consider reforms to level the playing field for small donors. Tax credits for donations of $50 or less might be one idea, which, coupled with the democratizing influence of the Internet and online fund-raising, could be a very powerful, real reform.

Other reform proposals pending in the Legislature, such as increases in the frequency of reporting on campaign finances, greater transparency of contributions, and stiffer penalties for election-law violations, should be fully embraced. But let's not further stack the deck with more big money in politics.