Companies Argue For Public Campaign Financing
Some corporations want lawmakers to concentrate on making laws, not on raising funds.
Believe it or not, some corporate executives are tired of being shaken down by political candidates. They don’t want to buy any more influence on Capitol Hill.
The day after the U.S. Supreme Court shredded restrictions on corporate political spending that dated back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, an alliance of 40 current and former execs sent a letter to Congress asking to be left alone.
In their letter, the executives said they’re often on the receiving end of solicitations from people who really should be focused on solving the problems facing the nation.
“Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors,” the letter said. “… With additional money flowing into the system due to the court’s decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase.”
The signers cover the political spectrum and include current and former execs of MetLife, Stride Rite, Hasbro, Seagram’s, Sunnydale Farms, Ben & Jerry’s, Playboy Enterprises and Crate & Barrel.
Alan Hassenfeld, chairman of Hasbro, said it’s long past time to “stop requiring that our elected officials moonlight as telemarketers raising money for their re-election campaigns.”
The group wants lawmakers to approve the proposed Fair Election Now Act, a measure that would establish a system for public financing of congressional campaigns.
The chief sponsors of the legislation include Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican who represents northeastern North Carolina. About 120 have signed on as co-sponsors of the House bill, but only six have backed the Senate version.
The proposal would set a formula under which candidates would have to collect a specified number of $100 maximum contributions from individuals in their states before they can gain access to public funds for their campaigns.
In the House version, the public funds would be collected from the sale of unused TV broadcast spectrum. The Senate bill would raise money by charging a special fee to companies that land government contracts.
Neither measure will be an easy sell to members of Congress, many of whom have grown adept at working the current system and are eager to drink from the new torrent of corporate money.
And, for that matter, it’s not clear that either measure would adequately address the existing problems with campaign finance laws, let alone the new problems opened by the Supreme Court.
But as Americans begin to see the repercussions of the court’s actions – and, perhaps, as more civic-minded corporate executives speak up – it’s likely some form of public financing will be part of the solution. It certainly should be part of the dialogue.
Related Articles
Recent Comments
