Electoral finance reform and corporate persons

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/supreme-court-rejects-t127523/index.html



As discussed recently on RevLeft, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of associations doling out money to political candidates.

Since there is a clear problem of money dominating campaigns, a few years back Senator John McCain tried to put forth campaign finance reform. This didn't go far enough, as other countries have banned "political" (read: electoral) contributions from associations (corporations, unions, etc.) and capped the amount of money individuals can give. This means that electoral machines known as "parties" are reliant upon the state for funding, based upon their respective electoral performances. Corporations, meanwhile still have other "corporate person" rights, plus the basic limited liability laws needed to raise capital.

Question: While there's obviously the need to scrap the corporate person, what are the pros and cons of restricting electoral contribution rights (re. electoral machines) strictly to eligible voters (not just "individuals")?

[Martin Blank]

One thing I'd like to point out is that this conflict over corporate financing or "public financing" is more of a conflict over who is going to dominate the two main parties: the capitalists through their machinery (corporations) or their managers through their machinery (the government).

Ironically enough, the recent Supreme Court decision is something of a double-edged sword for the bourgeoisie. While it gives corporations virtually unrestricted financing power, the wording in the decision also lays the basis for striking down the sections of the Landrum-Griffin Act that forbid unions from directly financing parties and candidates -- the law that has hitherto stood in the way of a union-sponsored labor party in the U.S.

Unions now have a basis for challenging Landrum-Griffin on the basis of case law, and could get the sections of that law dealing with unions participating directly in politics finally struck down.

The only way to really equalize out campaign financing, especially so that it allows smaller and/or poorly-funded political parties (like grassroots workers' parties) the ability to campaign on an equal footing, would be some kind of progressive campaign financing. For example, if the average single donation to the most-funded party (corporate and individual -- PACs, 527s, "bundles", etc., included) is $2,500 and the average single donation to a workers' party is $20, the progressive financing would give $2,480 to the workers' party for every donation it received in a quarter, as well as a lump amount that equalizes out the amount of money each party has.

Moreover, you would want to equalize access to media: radio, television and Internet.

And, of course, ballot-access laws would have to be fundamentally changed and standardized. The Florida ballot-access law would serve as a good model.

[h9socialist]

I don't think you'll ever have an even "playing field" until we have completely publically financed campaigns. They could put a couple billion dollars into that fund, and it would be way cheaper to the public. Anything less, just keeps the old system in tact.