All right, I admit it. I am a political junkie. In fact, in 1970 I almost ran for Congress on a minor party ticket as an anti-war candidate. The Party leaders who asked me to run told me that there was no money for my campaign - but I could get in on any free public forums which might be held. The possibility of having to resign from the ministry of this church by virtue of election was - well, a tad remote. What stopped me? I had been here about a month and thought that running just might be interpreted as using my influence before I got it.
Nonetheless, this urge to apply religious values to public issues illustrates the close but uneasy relationship of politics and religion. The late E. B. White wrote that "Democracy itself is a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have."[1] As Unitarian Universalists we "covenant to affirm and promote ... the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large." Clearly, maintaining the health of a democratic society is a religious principle. This church "offers a platform for the free voice, for declaring, both in times of security and danger, the full and undivided conflict of opinion."[2]
"A Revolutionary War soldier named Ames once described the difference between monarchy and democracy in an analogy of a three-masted sailing ship and a raft. The one is beautiful and impressive on the high seas, he said, but in rough weather can be shattered and sunk against the shoals. The raft of democracy, on the other hand, is virtually unsinkable ... but you always have your feet wet."[3]
Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth illustrated one way in which our feet are getting wet when he spoke of "...a time when...spiritual principles informed the society. You can tell what's informing the society by what the tallest building is. When you approach a medieval town, the cathedral is the tallest thing in the place. When you approach an eighteenth-century town, it is the political palace that's the tallest thing in the place. And when you approach a modern city, the tallest places are the office buildings, the centers of economic life....That's the history of Western civilization."[4]
I believe Campbell's compelling image is at the heart of American political problems. The market dominates not only our economic life, but our political life as well. We might call it market imperialism; the market invades and dominates every other aspect of human existence. It is a case of money operating outside its sphere. This is plutocracy - government by the few - rather than a democracy - government by the many - and that is where we are heading. I would like to recreate that image so that values, politics and the economic order are in creative tension.
The new Golden Rule of American politics is that if you want to find out who rules, follow the money. What is my evidence? The flap over White House fund raising tops the list. President Clinton has apparently put a giant "for sale" sign on presidential access. Item: Johnny Chung, implicated in Asian money flowing illegally into Democratic campaign coffers, said, "I see the White House is like a subway - you have to put in coins to open the gates."
Item: Is it any coincidence that when Big Tobacco gives $20 million to Republicans in Washington there is no anti-tobacco deal; that stricter rulings on drunk driving failed while restaurant and liquor interests gave $26 million to members of both parties; that the Patient's Bill of Rights failed after the HMO lobby opposed it by pumping some $5.6 million into the campaigns of people up for re-election?
Item: Common Cause points out that winners of tax preferences in the 1997 tax and budget accord were groups that had contributed some $300 million in "soft" (unregulated) money since 1995. In 1996 House races the candidate who raised the most money won 92% of the time, in the Senate 88%.
There are a few voices which address this issue head-on: Former Representative Romano Mazzoli retired from Congress with these words: "If your nerve ends have been cauterized by all of this stuff ... and you take whatever you take by way of money or trips - just like rolling off a log - then this place has done its job on you. And it's time to go home." The late Barry Goldwater said, "Senators and representatives weigh every decision against the question, ''How will this affect my fundraising prospects?' rather than how will this affect the national interest."[5] Senator John McCain, who addressed our Unitarian Universalist General Assembly in Phoenix in 1997, said, "During the debate (on the Telecommunications Act of 1996) everyone was protected but the consumer. I saw senators leave the room to ask special interests how to vote." We select our representatives to work on our behalf, not to raise money.
The McCain-Feingold bill would have ended "soft money" - sums given to parties for housekeeping, but funneled to candidates often for attack ads; it would have curtailed "issue ads" which also became partisan attacks. The bill came to the Senate after passing the House with strong bi-partisan support, but was killed as Senate Republicans filibustered, with the help of Al D'Amato. This despite the fact that 9 of 13 Republicans in the New York State House delegation supported it. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger put it, "Ninety percent of politicians give the other 10% a bad reputation."[6]
Nor is this merely a federal problem. "In this year's Democratic primaries, attorney general hopeful Evan Davis and gubernatorial candidate James Larocca were the most outspoken advocates for limiting contributions. They also raised the least money in their races. Both candidates, attractive and aggressive politicians, finished last in a four-person primary field. The primary candidates who spent the most money won all four Democratic primary contests."[7]
Governor George Pataki stonewalled reporters when they tried to get his contributor list, which he alphabetized by first name rather than last and then added the date of contribution to confound the matter - just ask them. Comptroller Carl McCall received over $1.8 million from donor groups to which he awarded state pension fund contracts. His predecessor Ed Regan did the same thing; his aid said in a memo, "Those who give will get."[8] Political corruption is a bi-partisan disease.
Yet we are asked to believe New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno who said recently, "When vested interests spend money, they are not buying anything. They don't buy a vote. That's nonsense. That's stuff that these do-gooders talk about. It doesn't mean a thing."[9] If it doesn't, I wonder, why do they waste their time and money doing it?
Lord Acton once said that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."[10] It might also be said that "money tends to corrupt, and unlimited money corrupts absolutely." The result is that Americans increasingly believe political power is for sale to the highest bidder. Failure to enact campaign finance reform further erodes the basic trust of the public in politicians and in government.
But what is a rationale for reform? Conservative thinkers understand economic and political freedom as inextricably interwoven. Economist Milton Friedman sees the capitalist economy as a voting booth - each person voting with their dollars for the goods and services that they wish. But as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, our beautiful one person, one vote theory is murdered by a brutal gang of facts.
In today's political economy we have one dollar, one vote, since those with dollars exert a disproportionate influence on public policy. Power grows out of the end, not of a gun barrel, but a dollar bill. Those with the gold make the rules - or at least control those who do. As the Green Party puts it, "If the founding fathers had wanted American democracy to use dollars bills as ballots, they would have placed cash registers where ballot boxes now stand."[11]
We Unitarian Universalists affirm the "inherent worth and dignity of every person," a value undermined when concentrations of power render individual political activity relatively meaningless. We affirm the "use of the democratic process," a value compromised when economic power exerts a disproportionate influence on public policy. Democracy is the capacity of people to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, and absent campaign finance reform we are less and less able to do so.
Religious educator Hugo J. Hollerorth once wrote, "To be a human being is to be a dwelling place of power. To move about the world, and interact with it, is to encounter power. We live in a world inhabited by power - power which impinges upon us and affects us every moment of our existence[12].... Religion arises ... out of the effort of human beings to make their way in a world of conflicting powers."[13]
Individual citizens are in serious danger of losing their power to participate in democratic government. Unless we reform the money-driven political process with its legalized bribery, we will find democracy slowly but surely slipping from our grasp as a moneyed oligarchy increasingly takes control of the political system. This will not only corrupt public policy and widen the already gaping disparities between rich and poor, but also deny the inherent dignity of the individual - which is as much a religious as a political issue.
To be sure each citizen has formal freedom to participate in the process, but lack what political philosopher John Rawls calls "the worth of freedom," the capacity and opportunity to participate in those decisions that affect one's life. To political pundits like George Will, who believes campaign spending limits inhibit free speech, we can only note that in the current mass media context the money required silences most of us. Anatole France wrote of the "majestic equality of the laws, which forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."[14]
Likewise both Bill Gates and I have equal rights to run for office - that is formal freedom. But in actual freedom he has money and I don't. To say money is speech and to limit money is to curtail speech is to say those with more money have more rights to freedom of speech than those without. Placing limits on campaign spending does not regulate the content of political speech, only how much of it money can buy - it levels the playing field so there is something resembling equal time for debate. Now, if Bill Gates wanted to be President he could buy not only infinite TV time but also enough TV stations to virtually monopolize the debate. Just call him Rupert Murdoch with a computer.
The pillars of democracy, liberty and equality, necessarily exist in tension. Perfect equality requires dictatorship; perfect liberty is anarchy. But if money buys liberty, then democracy is in trouble. The greatest threat to democracy is not limiting free speech by controlling the influence of big money, but the danger of big money undermining democracy for the rest of us.
There is no reason why regulated speech through campaign spending limits cannot be free speech. We already restrict free speech by saying we cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We used to have the Federal Communication Commission's Fairness and Equal Time doctrines which led to robust speech. Now that is gone and we are have the airwaves dominated by those with money to buy access. Too bad about the rest of us.
A 1949 Supreme Court decision regulated a union sound truck because it was too loud and relentless. The court said, in effect, that your right to speak doesn't include a right to drown out the opposition, or to annoy the peace of your neighbors. I don't watch TV much, but when I do, I feel overwhelmed by big money - polluting the airwaves with the garbage of the current campaign. If anything restricts free speech it is big money hogging the available microphones and scaring away the voters. In this case, paradoxically, regulated speech is necessary to liberate speech and to rescue democracy.[15]
We have reached what I call campaigning by fiscal intimidation. For example, George Pataki is spending $20 million this year, as is Independence Party candidate Tom Gallisano, each spending more than 4 times what Democrat Peter Vallone is spending. In one case an incumbent criss-crossed the country and built up a war chest that would scare off less funded opponents. In the other a personal fortune finances a campaign. We have come to accept these pre-emptive fiscal strikes against any known challenger.
What specific remedies do I suggest? We need to ban so-called "soft money," funds given ostensibly to political parties for infrastructure work, but which find their way into campaign bank accounts. It is estimated up to 3/4's of a billion dollars will be spent in 2000 through this loophole - much of it in the "attack ads" we have all come to hate. There are now virtually no limits on this money
We need to curtail the so-called "issue ads" which presumably deal with issues, not candidates, but which in fact are nothing more than partisan attacks under cover of law. The Christian Coalition is especially adept at such activity, though they are in court over their tax-exempt status. But business and labor do it too.
We need to make political contributions "transparent" so that givers, at least big givers who might curry favors, are known. Disclosure might have a dampening effect on this legalized bribery.
We need to require broadcast media to provide free air time to qualifying candidates. After all, we, the public presumably own the air waves. Between 35% and 60% now spent in congressional elections is for TV. At least could we have a political campaign ad free zone around "Monday Night Football"?
But far and away the best reform would be public financing of political campaigns, contingent upon voluntary spending limits. Such funding would require participation in a requisite number of debates. We should adopt the Maine Clean Elections Campaign Finance Reform approved by voter referendum in 1997 after the legislature turned down campaign finance reform 49 times. Candidates who agree to voluntary limits would get public funding. If an opposing candidate refuses to accept the limit or if interest groups become his de facto contributors, then the other candidate receives compensatory public funds. This would give campaigns back to the people by leveling the playing field.
Our calling as religious people is to work to create a community in which the commercial, the political and the religious edifices are in creative balance, and no one enterprise dominates the skyline. As E. B. White said, "Democracy itself is a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have." He also spoke of democracy as the score at the beginning of the ninth inning. There's always hope, but it's getting late.
Congressman Gilbert, has a nice ring, don't you think?
return to main page