As all you readers of Blue Mass Group know, anonymous big money in politics is a major problem. Luckily, today or tomorrow, if all goes well, the Legislature will finalize a bill to clamp down on anonymous SuperPac spending. That’s good law, of course. Reason 1.
But some want to torpedo the SuperPAC disclosure legislation at the last minute because of a part of the bill that raises individual contribution limits from $500 to $1,000.
Actually, the increase in the limit is a feature of the bill, not a bug. For democracy in Massachusetts, raising that limit is very likely to be a good thing, and is almost certainly not a bad one. It’s the 2nd reason the disclosure bill rocks. Follow me into the weeds to find out why.
In my life as an activist, reducing the power of big money in politics was my first love. I got the bug in 1996, pushing back against big-money-backed ancient right-winger Jesse Helms in North Carolina (younger readers, google him if you want, but be warned, his legislative record was terrifying). In 1997, I collected signatures and organized at Harvard and elsewhere for a reform campaign run by Mass Voters for Clean Elections, and I continued to support that campaign for years. Later I interned for the National Voting Rights Institute, a campaign finance reform group that eventually merged into Demos. And I kept the fires burning during six years at the helm of MassVOTE.
So what has happened in the past fifteen or so years that I’ve been watching the issue? Nothing good. Citizens United was perhaps the worst, but it is just rotten icing on already rancid cake. It is simply far too hard to run for office unless you are wealthy (or at least upper middle class) and/or have lots of well-off friends and connections. Or, perhaps, a billionaire or two to back you.
Consider the statewide offices: governor, auditor, secretary of state, attorney general, etc. The job of governor has a high enough profile that no incumbent ever gets a free pass at reelection… but who ever takes a serious shot an incumbent secretary of state or attorney general or auditor? No one. And why would they? – at a maximum of $500 a pop, it takes thousands of donors to raise the $1 million plus needed to run for an office like that. Even long-term sitting members of the State House and Senate don’t have that kind of money in their campaign accounts. So if you are, say, the Secretary of State, the job is pretty much yours for life unless you decide to retire or get indicted. Is that how the founders wanted things to work?
In an ideal system, there would be public funds to match small dollar donors. But that’s not on the table right now. What is on the table is a modest increase, from $500 to $1,000, of the individual limit. As a result, candidates running for office – mainly incumbent legislators, but including challengers, too – may be able to spend slightly less time fundraising, and thus have more time for talking to voters, doing their day jobs and living the rest of their lives as a result. And incumbents in the most expensive offices (people with war chests of $1 million or more) may be somewhat more likely to be challenged.
Will wealthy voters matter more than they do now? Probably not. For one thing, in our increasingly unequal society, it depends on whether you are talking about well-off people (the top 10%), wealthy people (the 1%), or the super wealthy (the .01%).
The super wealthy already have their SuperPACs, but they will be slightly less likely to use them thanks to the disclosure in the bill. For everyone else, moving from $500 to $1,000 is unlikely to change much. It is certainly less of a change than going to the limits in other states, which are far larger than $500 in all but a handful of states. Plenty of states have limits over $5,000, or no limit at all. Compared to those, Massachusetts will remain a very low limit state indeed.
All in all, then, the modest contribution increase is a small, but good feature of the bill. And don’t forget Reason 1. Until we find a way to reduce independent expenditures in politics – a cause that seems doomed under the current Supreme Court, unless we are able to amend the Constitution – you and I need some way to know, in a timely way, who is paying for the ads that tell us who to vote for. And that’s what the new disclosure bill will do, with some of the best, most transparent rules in the nation.
Kudos to Common Cause of MA, MassVOTE, the League of Women Voters and the Legislature for getting this far. Now, over the top.
Avi and I agree on most things and worked side by side for many years. We’ve had our differences on campaign finance limits, but are in 100% agreement that MA Disclose is a good bill.
It will be interesting to see how the increase from $500 to $1000, which comes very close to the rate of inflation over 20 years, will actually impact Massachusetts elections. It is a done deal in any case with virtually unanimous support in the legislature and in the mainstream media.
MA Disclose has been a top priority for Common Cause Massachusetts for 4 years. I wrote the first draft and have been aggressively advocating for the bill all that time. It came close to passing last session when the Senate approved it late in the session. This session, the bill is even stronger. The conference committee reported the bill last night and it contains virtually every disclosure provision we’ve fought for. I’m particularly excited about the top 5 donors being listed in TV ads and that all donors must be disclosed within 7 business days. Once the bill is signed (and there are two more votes before that step) the disclosure provisions will go into effect immediately. OCPF has been great and is standing ready to implement them. The limit increase and some other provisions go into effect next year.
Four legislators deserve particular credit. Rep Jamie Murphy and Sen Barry Finegold chaired the Election Laws Committee and the Conference Committee. Both were great advocates. Sen, Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Cory Atkins introduced the underlying legislation and were instrumental in getting the ball rolling and pushing it along. Many others played key rolls of course, as like raising children, getting legislation passed ‘takes a village.’ Many thanks to everyone who helped in any way! (And yes, I know there are still two votes and a signature!)
My prediction: no change whatsoever in the amount of time and energy spent raising funds, but more money in politics and a field tilted even more toward candidates with connections who can give $1,000 instead of $500. What percentage of Massachusetts voters can even spare $500 for a down-ballot race?
A lot better articulated than my own attempt awhile back regarding raising the increase. I’ve long thought $500 was a pittance for a statewide office at least.
Regarding Jesse Helms I have to confess that in addition to his legislative record it is also terrifying to me that we might have a generation of readers who have to Google his name!:)
“We need 100 more like Jesse Helms.”
Wow.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/ted-cruz-we-need-100-more-jesse-helms
During my State dept. internship I was told he and his staff had a great reputation as nice people to work with, and he actually supported the Foreign Service, but he also sandbagged Weld’s nomination out of spite and was an unrepentant segregationist his entire career. Frankly, Cruz should suffer the way Lott did for praising Thurmond. DOA for a presidential run.
…I saw a news report where they were getting person on the street opinions about whether they supported his nomination. One man replied, “I heard Jesse Helms opposes him, and if that’s the case he probably IS the right man for the job!”
Raising the limit marginally will do, at the very worst, nothing.
Not quite “no one” takes a shot at incumbents, Avi. How about John Bonifaz, the guy who started the National Voting Rights Institute you mention, challenged Sec. Galvin, and wrote this piece about the contribution limits a last week (and in the disclose dept., co-founder of Free Speech For People with me)? I think he makes some points about raising the contribution limits that are worth considering.