Opinion

The Great Debate

Making every voter equal

By Jonathan Soros
February 26, 2014

The venture capitalist Tom Perkins recently suggested that he should have a greater voice than others in selecting our government because he’s rich. “You pay a million dollars in taxes,” he told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, “you get a million votes. How’s that?”

Perkins later insisted that he had intended to be outrageous. As most Americans understand politics, however, he was just stating the obvious.

Instead of extra votes on Election Day, we who are wealthy enough to give money to politicians get special access before, and influence after, as candidates pursue the cash that is the life’s blood of their election campaigns. The more you give, the more access and influence you have. It’s as simple as that.

Our leaders’ supplication to donors is not new. But in the age of Super PACs the effect has become far more pronounced — even as the post-Watergate limits on campaign contributions look increasingly irrelevant.

There is a Super PAC for almost every candidate and cause — including one that I helped create, with the ironic mission of decreasing the influence of money in politics. But it would be a mistake to call this diversity. Our democracy is meant to be more than a disagreement among rich people.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to Perkins’ vision of a plutocratic dystopia.

Over the past few weeks, legislation has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate that could upend the political landscape. If passed, these bills would sever the dependence that candidates now have on large contributions and Super PACs by offering them a real alternative: the support of small contributions from ordinary voters magnified by a limited amount of public funds.

The Government by the People Act was launched with 130 co-sponsors and the support of a diverse group of more than 40 national advocacy organizations.  Within a week, more than 300,000 people signed on as “citizen co-sponsors,” vying to have the voice in politics that every citizen deserves.

This strong support signals the birth of new momentum and shows that meaningful reform does not require a constitutional amendment.  The battle against super PACs will not be won by eliminating them. It will be won by making them less relevant and putting ordinary voters back at the center of our elections.

The effort is even more impressive when measured against the prospects for immediate success.  Though the proposals enjoy broad bi-partisan public support, and some Republican members of Congress have privately expressed their support for change, the GOP leadership remains doggedly opposed.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has taken a particularly strident, if unpopular, position. He argues that campaign spending should be both unlimited and undisclosed, and is vehemently opposing all alternatives. Thankfully, other politicians have begun to appreciate that this is an issue that matters to voters and that any candidate will be better off as a supporter of reform than an opponent.

The excitement surrounding these congressional bill proposals is matched by the more immediate opportunity for success in New York State. Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has long advocated for citizen-funded elections as part of his efforts to clean-up Albany, has included a similar proposal in his budget submission to the state legislature.

In past years, Cuomo used his budgets to signal that Albany is working again. Other than delivering the budgets on-time, though, it has been little more than business as usual.  New York State continues to be scarred by corruption scandals (three sitting legislators are now under indictment) and no legislation with economic consequence passes without an accompanying story of the campaign contributions that greased the wheels.

The same legislators who benefit from the current system have stymied Cuomo’s previous efforts at reform. But if the governor stands firm during budget negotiations, he is likely to have the victory that has so far eluded him.

Victory in Albany would be a boon not only for New Yorkers but for all Americans who believe that our democracy should do a better job at representing the interests of ordinary voters — not just people like Perkins and me, who have the resources to buy influence.

It would be the clearest signal yet that a new era of opportunity is upon us and would blaze the path for other states and the eventual passage of citizen-funded elections for Congress.

This must be a prospect that terrifies Perkins — every voter having a worth equal to his or mine. But it is far closer to the democratic promise so fundamental to our national identity.  That ideal has been under increasing threat since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United further opened the floodgates for money in politics.

Finally, the tide is beginning to turn.

 

PHOTO: Venture capitalist Tom Perkins is interviewed in his office in San Francisco, California, September 12, 2011. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

PHOTO (INSERT 1): A roll of  “I Voted” stickers rests on a table near a voter registration list at the Old Train Depot in Denmark, South Carolina, January 21, 2012. REUTERS/Chris Keane

PHOTO (INSERT 2): New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (L) speaks to New York Assembly leader Sheldon Silver before Cuomo delivered his fourth State of the State address in Albany, New York, January 8, 2014. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Comments
9 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

I don’t think the tide has begun to turn yet. We are just getting typical lip service from the politicians and main stream media. Without having some kind of economic crash, significant enough to threaten Joe six-packs six pack and cable TV, then lip service is all well get. We need the “occupy” movement ten fold to actually turn the tide.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

Until corporations are NOT people, there will be no democracy. A corporation cannot breath, love, die or fall on its knees to pray, that it claim the human being Bill of Rights is a travesty. Public finance added to corporate finance in elections only increases the pot that is shared back to the corporate sector, most especially the media.

Posted by berkshiresMTA | Report as abusive
 

The majority of us are equal in that we have no voice at all. So, we are equally out of power. That was the intent of our so-called leaders. They know they were choosen by the wealthy, and they fully intend to service their masters.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive
 

Our country began as a disagreement among rich people. It’s the golden rule “He who has the gold rules.” Do they see their own self-interest in the greater good? My prosperity is not secure untill yours is.

Posted by nozone | Report as abusive
 

Mitch McConnell seems to be going out of his way to prove that he has no redeeming qualities at all.

Posted by breezinthru | Report as abusive
 

The fight must remain strong against money in politics.

This money is a threat to true capitalism and our democracy.

This money is only planting the seed of revolution!

Posted by Flash1022 | Report as abusive
 

In addition to allowing public funding from individuals giving small contributions, television advertising should be banned, and the whole election cycle shortened to about three months. Take the big money out of it, by law, and the super PACs will fizzle.

Posted by thinkb4its2late | Report as abusive
 

In place of general praise for the bill, it would have been helpful if the writer had actually shown how the idea would work. The bill’s concept appears to be that if a lot of new money floods into the political process from “small” citizens, it will neutralize the effect of the contributions of super pacs and, generally, big corporations. A worthwhile evaluation or even just discussion of the bill’s central concept would need to be numerically based and that is what is missing in Soros’ piece.

Posted by bcrawf | Report as abusive
 

I believe that until ALL the non-public money is out of political campaigns we will continue down this path. We need to put a time limit on campaigns – 3 months for state and local, 6 months for national. We also need to have a publicly funded set amount for various offices; this amount is all a candidate is allowed to spend. Campaign ads – or those for or against any candidate or issue or party or idea – need to be limited to issues and factual information. If an ad is not 100% factual regarding an issue, it would be pulled and the purchaser of the air-time for that ad hit with punitive fines. That is the only way the slimy PACs will cease and desist with the nasty untrue negative ads. When I was a kid, the papers ran a list of candidates with their positions on various issues – try to find that today! No one has a “position” other than “my opponent is the devil incarnate so vote for me”. Take the money – and lobbyists – and jobs for family members – out of politics and get a new breed of politician that may actually want to accomplish something good for the country rather than just make a fortune and amass power. Of course, pigs have a better chance of flying than meaningful reforms….

Posted by MidwestVoice | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •