Democrats and Republicans who care about the quality and integrity of America's electoral processes have been watching the Republican primaries with some dismay.
Not because of the candidates themselves, and not because these primaries happen to be Republican, but because we are seeing enormous, unprecedented amounts of money being spent on political ads by new entities called "super PACs."
These special PACs have formed in direct response to the January 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision called "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." That ruling dramatically altered the rules regarding how much, and when, individuals, corporations, unions and trade associations could contribute to political campaigns.
Although none of those players is permitted to donate directly to candidates, they may set up what are in essence parallel campaign organizations to create and fund political advertisements that either promote their candidate or attack an opponent.
The most distressing aspect of the court's decision was its removal of all limits on how much any individual or corporation may spend on behalf of a candidate. Also removed were the prohibitions about spending in the last 30 or 60 days prior to an election.
Consequently, we are witnessing extraordinary sums being spent to influence voters. So far, "Restore Our Future," a super PAC supportive of Mitt Romney, has spent roughly $16 million. "Winning Our Future," a super PAC supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has spent about $11 million; and the "Red, White and Blue Fund," supporting former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, has spent $2 million.
Because these funds exist over and above the candidates' own ad campaigns — which tend to be more positive and responsible — the super PAC advertising often has been negative. Furthermore, the law does not require that the identities of the donors to super PACs be revealed either prior to or during the airing of the ads.
When the Citizens United decision was reached, many observers pointed out that large sums of money can have a distorting effect on opinion and a corrosive effect on representative democracy.
If you believe that elections should revolve around important, substantive issues, and that candidates' governing philosophies and positions should be clearly expressed and explored, then it isn't difficult to see how huge pools of money can overwhelm the process of rational debate in the marketplace of ideas.
Just as commercial advertising can create product demand, it is quite possible for big money to saturate radio and TV with a message that as a practical matter drowns out the voices of less wealthy competitors. This possibility becomes even more likely when the electorate is as angry, resentful, impatient and volatile as it is today.
Many citizens are ready to just break things — including our government. Campaign advertising has a choice: It can be rational, calm, educational and fundamentally constructive; or it can play to people's worst fears and emotions, be misleading and destructive, and rev up voters in ways that undermine thought and dismiss complexity and context.
We saw the latter at work in Newt Gingrich's ugly campaign in South Carolina. Fueled partly by a $5 million donation from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Gingrich and his super PAC incited the electorate with a barrage of gutter-level sloganeering. (This week, it was reported that Adelson's wife, Miriam, has donated an additional $5 million to the "Winning our Future" PAC for the Florida campaign.)
The right of money to purchase free speech should not be absolute or thoughtless. As corporations and wealthy individuals — whether Republican or Democratic — underwrite massive purchases of TV, radio and print advertising, many voters are calling for measures to address the consequences of the Citizens United decision.
Some critics are calling for a constitutional amendment to deny corporations the right of "personhood," thus denying them the speech and spending rights of individual citizens. Others are calling for Congress to re-enact some limits on individual campaign donations.
The role of big money behind super PACs is coming to the attention of Americans at a time when many citizens have learned that the workings of Congress are also severely compromised by large donations.
If you don't want a corporation, union or a Sheldon Adelson buying inordinate access to your congressman, then you shouldn't want any of those players dictating the messages of super PACs either.
But there is reason for hope, and it involves action that could unify ordinary citizens and improve the performance of our government — whatever size it is. One area of agreement among liberals, conservatives, the tea party, the Occupy movement and just about every average voter is that the influence of money has contorted our democracy.
None of us is happy about being disenfranchised. Ordinary citizens, regardless of party, should join forces to demand reforms that diminish the power of money to sway elections and Congress.
• • •
Brian T. Watson of Swampscott is a regular Salem News columnist. Contact him at watson@nii.net.
No Limits for Disabled Hunters at Mich. Base
Victim Identified in Fla. Face-chewing Attack
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Crossed the Pacific
90 Guns Seized, Dozens Arrested in Oakland
Raw Video: Hail Storm Batters Oklahoma City
6-Year-Old Going to National Spelling Bee
California's Foie Gras Ban About to Begin
Video Essay: Funky Winkerbean Comic Turns 40
Hurricane Andrew Remembered, 20 Years Later
Judge's Ruling Halts Tenn. Mosque Construction
Romney in Las Vegas on Texas Primary Day
Sister Says She Reported Brother in Patz Killing
Even Fla. Police Shocked by Face-Mauling Attack
Angry Birds Spreading Their Wings
Witness Describes Fla. Face-chewing Attack
