By Jack E. Lohman
Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford) is researching a bill that would require independent groups to disclose their financial backers, but activist organizations are objecting because they want their funding sources kept secret. And their funders want anonymity so they can fund a cause without taking the responsibility they often preach.
If a group is receiving funds from the insurance industry and is paying for ads to support politicians to block meaningful health care reform — opposite the public’s wishes and best interests — does the public have a right to know that such opposition is funded by special interests rather than ordinary people? If a personal contribution is made to this group, should that also not be disclosed?
It’s an interesting debate, especially in these days of “values” and “taking responsibility” for one’s actions. Here we could have a wealthy tycoon avoiding disclosure by giving cash to a group to fund support for a particular candidate.
A middle ground, of course, could require disclosure of corporate backers yet protect individual funders, but then local interests would cleanse their contributions through out-of-state 527s. It’s messy.
A better approach is to provide optional public funding of campaigns, where the candidate(s) choosing a public grant for campaigning receives matching funds when these groups advertise against him. That removes the incentive for groups spending on trash ads in the first place, and it actually increases the “political speech” and debate activists say they want to protect.
But, Oh. That would level the playing field, and they don’t like level playing fields. Outspending their opposition is key to their strategy, which automatically means a disparity in our electoral system.
As well, they don’t want their money going to candidates they don’t agree with.
Surprise! That is already happening through the back door, as the massive taxes that result from our corrupt political system get passed to all citizens, right and left alike. Thus all taxpayers are already paying for all campaigns, but we pay hundreds of times more than if we simply paid for the elections up front. And those who are now giving, actually pay twice.
According to Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s studies, it is costing us $1300 per taxpayer per year in excessive government spending, all to appease campaign contributors. The deficit hawks should be fuming over this, but they aren’t.
Under the clean elections system, at $5 per taxpayer per year, we’d all be funding a clean political “system.” My money funds all parties and so does yours, because the system is funded by the taxpayers rather than the special interests that want expensive government giveaways (read that, taxpayer assets).
Is this constitutional? Of course it is, and politicians that claim otherwise are either totally misinformed or terribly disingenuous. Candidates can opt out if they prefer private money, but then they have to justify to the voters why they chose private funding. That’s the part they don’t like. (That “responsibility” thingy again.)
Opponents derisively call it “welfare for politicians,” but nothing could be better welfare for politicians than our current system of graft where 95% of incumbents get re-elected.
Money buys votes, and more money buys more votes, thus the rich can buy votes and the poor can’t. And incumbents are better positioned to gather money from the special interests because they have something to exchange: the ability to write laws in their favor.
And “incumbent protection” it is not, or the incumbents would have passed public funding years ago.
Clean elections make sense for the public, but that’s usually enough to draw strong opposition. You’d hope our politicians were better than that.
It’s puzzling that fiscal hawks can argue to protect the corrupt political system that is driving taxes out of sight and our state’s and nation’s economy into the ground.
Roads to nowhere? Bridges to nowhere? How about $200 million to widen I94 between Milwaukee and Illinois that will do little or nothing to relieve congestion? Follow the money and you’ll find a politician on the other end with his hand out. And perhaps even a friendly road builder.
And is all of this money going to Bill Clinton for his speeches, or really a back-door payment to Hillary to sponsor or vote for certain bills? Not that I don’t trust them, you know.
See all WDC reports here:
http://www.wisdc.org/sp052505.php
http://www.wisdc.org/pr081103.php
http://www.wisdc.org/grafttax2report.php
http://www.wisdc.org/grafttax.php
