The Special Interest Problem – An Analysis (27 October 2014)

by Lawrence Davidson, To the Point Analyses

Part I – A Problem with a History

The problem of special interests or lobbies was one of the foremost concerns of the Founding Fathers of the United States. In their day they were called factions. James Madison, who is considered the architect of the U.S. Constitution, devoted the entire tenth Federalist Paper (1787) to the problem. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority … actuated by some common … interest, adverse to … the aggregate interests of the community,” and believed that within the context of liberal republicanism, they could never be eliminated. However, he did feel they could be controlled. To this end he sought to create representative bodies with high numbers of delegates and a wide diversity of interests in the hope that they would counterbalance each other.

When George Washington delivered his famous Farewell Address in 1796, he too noted the problem. Washington warned of “combinations and associations” which attempt to “direct, control, counteract and awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities” and thereby substitute their own desires for the “delegated will of the nation.”

Bill To Return Power To The People

by Richard Long, Campaign for America’s Future, February 5, 2014

If you follow politics, you know the names Koch, Adelson, American Crossroads and Priorities USA Action. If you don’t know the names, you know their tools, the fearmongering ads that purport that voting for this candidate or another will cause the downfall of the country.

These are donors and organizations that spent millions of dollars trying to elect the next president. All in all, the 2012 election cost $5.8 billion, up from the $5.4 billion spent in 2008, with a majority of that money being spent not by candidates campaigns themselves, but rather given to super-PAC creations that arose following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. This decision allowed individuals and groups to spend in unlimited amounts, as long as it went to “unaffiliated” political action committees, that could, in turn produce stuff like this.

This deluge of cash could be slowed, however, with the introduction of a bill today by Democrats Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Representative John Sarbanes (Md.), who also wrote an introductory op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post. The bill, dubbed the “Government by the People” Act, would work to reduce the power of special interests and big money, and restore the power to the people.

The bill has three main provisions:

Providing a $25 refundable “My Voice” tax credit, designed to attract donor participation.

Creating a “Freedom From Influence” Matching Fund that would match donations on a six-to-one basis under $150. A candidate would have to prove their support is from a broad base in order to receive these funds, and agree to limit large donations.

Giving established candidates additional funds in the last 60 days of the campaign to battle the onslaught of negative ads from Super PACs. This would act as a counterbalance for the candidate that truly has broad support versus the candidate what has donors with deep pockets.

While for much of America’s history special interests and wealthy donors have gotten extra consideration, since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, this has allowed, nay, demanded, that candidates that wish to gain office cater to these groups. This essentially means that America has gone to that golden rule that reads, “he who has the gold makes the rules.” We have seen this in the creation of tax loopholes, bills that make it into law, and even court decisions….

continue reading and follow links at Campaign for America’s Future