“In 2014, big money called the tune in a system where the size of your wallet determines the strength of your voice and candidates without large donor networks find it impossible to keep up,” said Karen Shanton, Demos Policy Analyst, standing on the steps of Boston’s Ashburton Place where candidates file papers to run for public office.
A group of local and national advocates gathered there on Wednesday, January 14 to announce the release of a new study: “The Money Chase: Moving from Big Money Dominance in the 2014 Midterms to a Small Donor Democracy.”
The report, authored by MassPirg and Demos, found that big money dominated competitive Congressional races in the 2014 midterm election. According to the report, “the top two vote-getters in the 25 most competitive districts around the country got 86 percent of their campaign dollars from individuals giving $200 or more. Only two of the 50 candidates surveyed raised less than 70 percent of their individual contributions from big donors.”
Speaking at the event, Janet Domenitz, MASSPIRG’s Executive Director said, “Since most of us can’t afford to cut a thousand dollar check to candidates for elected office, we need to counter the outsized influence of mega-donors by amplifying the voices of small donors.”
“That’s why we need a constitutional amendment: To restore our ability to put sensible limits on the amount of money that can be raised or spent in elections.” said Ron Fein, the legal director of Free Speech for People, “The people can’t keep up with the 1% in an insane financial arms race for our democracy. The amendment will give breathing space for the people of cities, states, and the nation to debate and pass common-sense reforms.”
“When campaigns are paid for by big donors, those are the voices candidates hear the loudest. In a democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote, small donors should be at the center of campaign finance – not an afterthought,” concluded Domenitz.
Read the full report here.
jconway says
I long argued that our donor class is more concerned with social issues, particularly reproductive freedom and gay rights, and far less concerned with income inequality.
I totally agree with this diagnosis:
When Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and even Mitt friggin Romney have given more speeches on income inequality-with more specific policy proposals-than our presumptive nominee who is too busy giving 300k speeches to Goldman executives-that’s not a good sign. I am sure Jamie Dimon and the rest of em think of themselves as ‘good Democrats’, since they are pro-choice and pro-gay rights, even as they ignore income inequality, oppose basic regulations on their businesses, and spit on unions.
We gotta admit there are many limo liberals, whose liberalism stops at the limos door. Elizabeth Warren, Richard Trumka, and Bernie Sanders should be the face of the party-not these clowns.
johntmay says
is now a mere formality because of the gerrymandering where seats are “blue” or “red” automatically. That means that the big money that supports their particular candidate in the primary is the one we all have to live with.
Peter Porcupine says
Provided that George Soros and Bill Koch are treated exactly the same.
To date these efforts have centered on supressing conservative and private sector money while preserving progressive and public sector union spending.
Human Only donation please
Christopher says
…but both current law and any proposals I’ve heard do in fact treat everyone the same. Both business corporations and unions are required to give directly through PACs. CU allows both to spend their own money independently. After all, unions are incorporated entities and thus technically fall under the broad category of “corporations”. It only feels like one side is being targeted because as a practical matter it has the most to lose.