Are the limits placed on individual contributions to political candidates appropriate?

Yes

1 of 13

by Lezley Mcdouall

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Let's rephrase that question to read, "Is it appropriate to place any limit upon campaign contributions?" That's the question most people seem to be answering here. As the question stands, the real answer is be, "No, the limits are not appropriate - the limits are set far too high to accomplish the desired goal."

If what we want is for every citizen to have access to the process of representative government in this Republic, we need to tailor campaign finance laws to achieve that goal. As it is, the high limits on campaign contributions have created what is known in legal circles as 'the money primary'. Candidates who cannot raise the requisite bucks are not given any media attention, which is functionally equivalent to not being in the race. Even now, federal courts in several states are deliberating upon whether this 'money primary' is an unconstitutional barrier to citizens' Equal Protection.

I have personal experience of the effects of the 'money primary' upon the Senate campaign of an honest public servant. A qualified, thoughtful, experienced person we'll call Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown knew the odds were against her but believed what we all learned in Civics class about the United States of America being a place where anyone, from any walk of life, could run for office and serve as a representative if We the People chose her.

I was present when Ms. Brown held a press conference to announce her candidacy. There were not as many reporters there as there had been for the announcements of two other candidates who were both personally wealthy and well-connected within the corporate community. Ms. Brown spoke, in her announcement, of her desire to represent the majority of people in the state who are working hard, but barely getting by. People like herself. She listed three major policy positions for her campaign, based on conversations she'd had with people traveling throughout the state in the previous year.

The first question the reporters asked Ms. Brown was, "Do you have enough money to mount a credible campaign?" Her response was that if a certain amount of money were a precondition of candidacy, the constitutional right of every American to representative government was in jeopardy. The press pretty much ignored the rest of her campaign, focussing almost entirely on the amount of money raised and spent by her opponents. She received 3% of the vote in her party's primary.

Repeat this scenario all over the United States, until outraged. Watch the presidential horserace between millionares with corporate backers reduced to comparing war-chests and hairstyles.

Our Libertarian contributors wince at the thought of anyone telling anyone else how they can spend their money. The philosophical abstraction of this approach detaches this argument from any real result. But it is easy to see, walking the blighted streets of any city in the US and smelling the fear walled up in the gated suburban communities, the unwholesome result of disenfranchising the poor.

The Supreme Court ruled years ago that poll taxes and candidate filing fees were both unconstitutional, since they excluded poorer citizens from meaningful participation in democratic processes and violated the Right to Equal Protection. Our current campaign finance system goes far beyond those tiny hurdles to erect a Great Wall behind which anyone who isn't a millionare is told to stand and wait for those with money to fashion the circumstances of American life. We can call this system many things, but Constitutional and democratic are not among the options.

Learn more about this author, Lezley Mcdouall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.