Should we now give up all pretense that spending limits can be enforced, or that public financing of elections is a reasonable way to go? Even if the elections are officially publicly financed, there seems to be no limit on soft money contributions from corporations. Rick Hasen at Huffington Post doubts that this is the solution. If we worry about corporate dominance of money in the political process, how about trying to subsidize some campaigns through public financing. Today's opinion does not take public financing plans off the table, but an earlier Supreme Court opinion, FEC v. Davis, likely takes the most attractive portion of public financing plans out.
California has a good experiment going on with the financing of the Secretary of State race. While not perfect, it does go a long way toward getting big money out of the picture. Still, with the SCOTUS decision today, I would expect to see this challenged before we get to try it out.
We already have a dominance of corporate spending in CA elections. It really takes place in the machinations involved in the ever increasing number of initiatives, where the airways fill with misleading hyperventiated negative commercials that only Gary South could love.
Take any major issue we are dealing with: Health Care and Climate Change come most to mind, and figure out how the will of the people is anything more than the will of the corporation. Consider the power of Exxon-Mobil and or Chevron vis-a-vis climate change legislation and offshore drilling. Consider the power of Stewart Resnick regarding water.
I agree with Gary. It is the Democracy of the $$.
Wes |
