Supreme Court Decision Will Turn River of Campaign Cash into Flood

MAPLight's Exec Dir Comments on SCOTUS CU v FEC Decision‏.

Courtesy: kivasusana.files.wordpress.com

(BERKELEY) - A river of money underlies all decisions in Congress and in Sacramento. This week's U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United v FEC case means this river will flood further with corporate campaign donations.

We will still be electing the best fundraisers, rather than the best leaders. MAPLight.org's research has repeatedly shown that politicians' relentless fundraising has a payoff to the interest groups that provide the funds.

We find that on issue after issue, how lawmakers vote aligns with the interest groups that fund their campaigns.

For example: Prescription Drug Imports in the current health care debate in the U.S. Senate, Senators voting to block drug imports from other countries, as American drug companies wanted, received an average of $85,779 each from drug companies.

That's 69 percent more than given to Senators who voted to allow imports. Financial bailout - U.S. House members who voted for the $700 billion bank bailout received 54 percent more campaign contributions from banks and securities firms than House members voting against the bailout.

That's an average of $231,877 in bank contributions received by each House member voting Yes, vs. $150,982 for each member voting No. Telecom Immunity House Democrats who flipped their positions to favor immunity for telecom firms received an average of 68 percent more money from AT&T, Verizon and Sprint's political action committees, compared with Dems who remained opposed to immunity.

Thats $4,987 to each Dem who opposed immunity and $8,359 to each Dem who flipped positions to favor telecom firms. Do legislators vote a certain way because they received money, or do they receive money because they vote a certain way? Either way, interest groups are still buying votes.

Even in cases where a legislator does not change his or her views, legislators favorable to industry interests raise more money to campaign, to conduct polls, to buy ads, and to get elected.

Congress, and Sacramento, are bought and biased in favor of the interest groups that fund campaigns, even if no individual politician changes their beliefs or their vote. Despite the ruling today, there is hope... Seven states allow candidates to run for office and win without accepting funds from private interests seeking favors.

In Connecticut, for example, after just one election with their new citizen-funded election system, 81 percent of sitting Connecticut legislators were free of seeking big donations from interest groups investing in politics.

They are free to make decisions based on citizens' best interests. Imagine the California legislature, and U.S. Congress, elected without influence-seeking dollars. It may be hard to imagine, but it is reality now in these forward-thinking states.

It could be a reality in California and Washington, D.C. very soon. In the U.S. Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act^[1] has more than 125 sponsors in Congress, including Senator Barbara Boxer. And, closer to home, here in California, the California Fair Elections Act will be on this June's ballot.

Endorsed by the League of Women Voters of California, this measure will take key steps forward to let state officials focus on governing instead of fundraising. This week's Supreme Court decision takes a system that's already bad and makes it worse.

Fortunately, solutions are already tested and ready to be enacted by U.S. Congress, and by California voters this June.

^[1] fairelectionsnow.org