Event: Innovative Solutions to Money in Politics

Comments

1. John Abbotts

   January 13, 2015 at 7:34 pm

   Hello Alan,

   If I may, I would like to offer my own suggestion, and would welcome any comments or legal analysis on whether it might make sense or not.

   The suggestion is based on the Roberts Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, where Justice Roberts, who clearly favors unlimited corporate contributions to destroy democracy [o.k., my analysis, for what it is worth], was the deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. And part of his rationale was that government has the authority to require a health insurance mandate, but with an option for individuals to pay a tax to “opt-out” of the mandate.

   The same approach could apply in a legal adjustment to Citizens United. That is, corporations could still spend as much money as they wanted, but they would be taxed at 100% (the same amount as the full contribution), with some nominal lower exclusion, say $250, to allow human citizens to make contributions without a tax. IMHO, this would reflect the Sightline principle of “tax bads, not goods,” i.e., tax things where society would benefit from less of the “bad” (pollution, corporate control of politics, other “sinful” items).

   In addition, this is something that could be done on a state or local level, even though corporate money would still likely be against it, without the need of a Constitutional amendment. Moreover, decisions at more local levels could represent a harbinger for change, as well as a template for changes at broader government levels.

   It would also reflect the opinion of former Justice Brandeis, which to paraphrase, was something like, “We can have democracy or a financially privileged class, but not both.”

   In making this comment, I acknowledge that I have not been trained in law, and would welcome a discussion on whether this makes sense.

   Regards,

   Reply

   • Alan Durning

     January 15, 2015 at 8:59 am

     I like the way you think, JA. I’m not a lawyer, and certainly not a constitutional law scholar, but my guess is that taxing campaign money won’t pass muster. The problem, as I understand it, is that the Roberts Court regards campaign money as political speech and political speech as sacrosanct. Nothing can touch it. If you could convince the court that crying fire in a crowded theater was political speech, the court would probably protect the fire crier.

     Reply

     • John Abbotts

       January 16, 2015 at 4:04 am

       Hello Alan,

       Thanks for your feedback. And of course, crying fire in a crowded theater used to be the standard for speech that could be prohibited. Then the Roberts court overturned more than 100 years of campaign finance law, by some accounts, and allowed unlimited corporate financing, which John McCain had characterized as legalized political corruption, back when he was willing to challenge it.

       The appointment of John Roberts and Justices of similar ilk furthers the argument that folks should vote as if their futures and the nation’s future depends on it, because Supreme Court decisions may stand for decades.

       I see by your earlier posts that you are also a fan of Brandeis, and the link that you provided elsewhere gives the full quote that I paraphrased above. That is,
       “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
       Link to that one, along with other quotes that seem very relevant today, is: http://www.brandeis.edu/legacyfund/bio.html

       Thanks again. I look forward to your future posts in the What Democracy Looks Like theme.

       Reply