In earlier columns, I discussed ways to make voting more convenient and how to prevent politicians from becoming complacent. Next, I want to address another crucial issue: reducing money’s influence on politics. Doing so would lessen the advantage of incumbency, make it easier for ordinary citizens to run for office, and curb the outsized influence of wealthy donors. The name for this effort is one you’ve likely heard before – campaign finance reform.
In what would be considered a shocking act of political responsibility and bipartisanship today, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. Its primary goals were twofold: to prohibit national political parties from raising or spending money not subject to federal limits, and to restrict corporations and unions from using their funds for issue-based political ads. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court later struck down most of the law’s key provisions – most notably in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
With the Supreme Court declaring much of campaign finance reform unconstitutional, some might assume the issue is settled. It isn’t. The solution lies in a constitutional amendment. In fact, such an amendment has been proposed in nearly every session of Congress since the Supreme Court‘s rulings. Despite gaining as many as 46 Senate co-sponsors at one point, the proposal has never advanced.
Once again, if Congress will not act to reform itself, then voters must take matters into their own hands. The good news is that there is widespread, bipartisan agreement on this issue. An overwhelming majority of Americans – Republicans and Democrats alike – believe that: (1) the cost of political campaigns makes it hard for good people to run for office, (2) special interest groups, lobbyists, large local employers, and people who donate a lot of money to politicians have too much say, (3) politicians run for office to make a lot of money, and (4) it’s possible have to laws that fix these issues.
According to United for the People, twenty-two states have passed resolutions supporting a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform (Mississippi is not among them). If twelve more states join in, a constitutional convention could be called to address the issue directly.
At minimum, we need an amendment that gives Congress and/or voters the power to regulate money in politics. Until we bring the influence of money under control, our government will remain “of the few, by the few, for the few” rather than “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Dr. Raymond E. Barranco is professor of sociology at Mississippi State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from Louisiana State University, and his work has been published in multiple criminology and sociology journals. Dr. Barranco invites readers to send feedback and sociology-related questions you’d like him to address in this space to [email protected].
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 47 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 47 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
