Contribution Limits Should Go

O.K., boys and girls, what did we learn from this year’s primary election?  I suppose that literally we learned who came in first, second, and third in a few political races, but that’s not really worth much in the long run.  No, I mean to ask the question in the way a businessperson asks about lessons learned from a particular project or venture, the ultimate aim being to make things better next time.

The answer is, “Money matters, and it is no longer the candidates who are spending the real money.”  This may not be news to political insiders, but to the general public it is an important lesson.

We cannot abridge the first amendment rights of our citizens, and therefore we cannot restrict what individuals or groups say in print or on air.  Nor can we limit how much money they can spend getting their message out.  But we HAVE limited the amount that they can give directly to a political candidate, thereby forcing money into various non-profit structures designed to conduct IE’s (Independent Expenditures – to the uninitiated, that would be political spending that is not coordinated with a specific campaign).

The wink and nod that happens here is regarding the word ‘coordinated’.  While these groups cannot coordinate with the official campaign that they are supporting, they CAN coordinate with other groups and intermediaries.  Additionally, they can move money around between themselves, obfuscating the money trail that the Public Disclosure Commission seeks to make known to the people.

In the end, you may or may not know the actual people behind that door hanger stating  that an incumbent Senator is a pedophile until well after the votes have been cast.  And since there is no legal obligation to tell the truth in political speech, it is all the more important to know who is paying to deliver the message.

The solution to the problem is simple.  Allow individuals to give as much money to candidates as they wish, as well as to organizations designed for political purposes, but prohibit those organizations from giving to each other.  We should also require that groups with catchy, but non-descript, names like “Forward PAC”, “For The People”, or “Puget Sound Citizens for Political Responsibility” give the Public Disclosure Commission a brief (and binding) description of their purpose.

Until we do this, we will continue to see candidates such as Nick Harper in the 38^th Legislative district spend $30,000 on his campaign, while groups with no accountability to voters spend 10 times as much either supporting his campaign or, more likely, tearing down the reputation of his opponent.  While it is true that it is often easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission, this is a dangerous game to play when it comes to the financing of our political system.