{"id":2581,"date":"2015-01-22T14:30:14","date_gmt":"2015-01-22T19:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/?p=2581"},"modified":"2015-01-22T14:30:14","modified_gmt":"2015-01-22T19:30:14","slug":"campaign-finance-corrupting-our-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/campaign-finance-corrupting-our-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"Campaign Finance Corrupting Our Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"ballot-box_jpg_600x848_q85\"<\/a>

Image by Thomas Nast<\/p><\/div>\n

Voters don’t care about campaign finance. \u00a0It doesn’t register as an issue for most folks. \u00a0But our system is broken and getting worse, and our democracy becomes less and less democratic with each six-figure “independent expenditure” by some uber-wealthy, self-interested individual.<\/p>\n

Our present set of campaign finance laws gives those with deeper pockets a much louder and more influential voice in public debate. \u00a0Are the ideas and priorities of wealthy folks by definition more worthy of consideration than those of the rest of us? \u00a0I, for one, don’t think so.<\/p>\n

Here’s David Cole at the New York\u00a0Review of Books (I’ve quoted a few poignant excerpts (and added emphasis<\/strong>). \u00a0Click through to read the whole piece<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Billion-Dollar Mistake<\/a><\/h2>\n

Five years ago this week, in Citizens United<\/a> v. Federal Election Commission<\/em><\/strong>, the Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited amounts of corporate spending in political campaigns. How important was that decision?<\/strong> At the time, some said criticism of the decision was overblown, and that fears that it would give outsize influence to powerful interests were unfounded. Now, the evidence is in, and the results are devastating<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

…<\/a><\/p>\n

According to the Brennan Center report, over the five years since these decisions, super PACs have spent more than one billion dollars<\/a> on federal election campaigns<\/strong>. And because these organizations are free of any limits, they have proved to be magnets for those who have the resources to spend lavishly to further their interests. About 60 percent of that billion dollars has come from just 195 people. Those 195 individuals have only one vote each, but does anyone believe that their combined expenditure of over $600 million does not give them disproportionate influence on the politicians they have supported?<\/strong> The average contributions of those who give more than $200 to such super PACs are in the five- and six-figure range. The average donation<\/strong> over $200 to the ironically named Ending Spending, a conservative PAC, was $502,188. This is a game played by, and for, the wealthy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

…
\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n