Philosophical Methodology Exercises: #3 Philosopher as Public Intellectual

I had this article published in the Hill News a couple months ago, and while it is in no way explicitly philosophical, I believe it's core message is the encouragement of critical thought and action in regards to our current political situation.

What is Democracy Matters?

We are not advocating Communism or Socialism (We aren’t even just Democrats). We are not trying to restrict your free speech (unless you think that rich people deserve a greater voice than the rest of us). We are not even advocating any significant tax increases (full public funding for federal elections would only cost about $10 a person). The truth is Democracy Matters is a non-partisan student organization trying to get money out of politics. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democratic or a Republican to even be competitive in any political race at the state and especially the federal level you have to either raise or have a shit ton of money. Just look at any politician out there today and you’ll find that either they come from a lot of money, such as our current president, or they have to make a lot of money, or at the very least have a lot of friends with money in order to run for office. Even politicians who don’t come from a lot of money, such as Barack Obama, are forced to alter their principles in order to work within the system. In his latest book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama candidly admits, “I know that as a consequence of my fund raising I become more like the wealthy donors I met.”

The way clean elections works is actually quite simple. To make sure that candidates who will be using these public funds to run their campaigns aren’t just any bum off the street, candidates are required to get signatures from people who will support their candidacy. The catch is each person who signs has to give the candidate $5 (or 10$ in Connecticut, because well it is Connecticut) to demonstrate their sincere support for the candidate. After a certain number of signatures have been collected (depending on the state), the candidate becomes eligible for public vouchers (not just cash, so you actually know where your taxes are going) to run his or her campaign. This system puts values, issues and people at the center of politics rather than money. It allows for candidates outside of the Republican and Democratic parties to have an opportunity to compete at all elections, thus it gives the American people more of a choice in politics (no longer will we be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils as the 2004 presidential election (Bush vs. Kerry) was so tragically depicted).

Campaign finance reform has been proposed since Thomas Jefferson once warned of the dangers of corporate corruption in politics all the way back at the dawn of our nation’s history. Following the Watergate Scandal, our country realized that power and money was corrupting politicians and that something ought to be done in order to reform our system, thus in 1976 The Federal Election Campaign Act was passed and the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) was established. While trying to convince the public of the perception of corruption in politics the FEC established public disclosure of all campaign contributions and set the first limits to campaign contributions. While this initial set of reforms did set up a system which publicly funded presidential races congress didn’t think it was a good idea to restrict the money they themselves accepted from lobbyists. Following the Supreme Court case of Buckely vs. Valeo later in 1976 which declared money as equivalent to free speech, congressmen (and women) were given free reign to accept however much money they might want from any corporations.

Ever since 1976 numerous reforms have been made to clean up this system but with minimal success. Individual and group campaign contributions (Hard money) have been limited, but this has not deterred corporations from heavily influencing politicians through “Bundling” which is when a individuals collect their money and are able to give considerable donations to candidates. Another popular method to financially influence politicians is through unlimited donations given to political parties, and thus indirectly funneled to candidates (Soft money).

During the last Presidential election George W. Bush and John Kerry raised respectively $367,228,801 and $328,479,245 (www.opensecrets.org). In 2008 experts predict the total contribution to presidential candidates to top $1 billion! So what can we do about it?

Corporations give money to all politicians and in return (the corporations are paying for something after all) these politicians are sure to keep such corporate interests in consideration when leading our country. For example Pharmaceutical and Health Products Industries gave more than $90 million dollars to political candidates between 1989 and 2003 (and as is the general trend, these companies give money to both Republicans and Democrats at the same time in order to secure that whoever gets elected, their corporate interests are represented). So is it any wonder that despite the fact that we are one of the richest countries, our government does nothing to prevent us from paying the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world, and 65 million Americans lack prescription drug coverage (www.democracymatters.org).

The situation is not as bleak as it may seem. There is hope! To find this hope one need only to look to such states as Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut, who all have full public financing for all state offices. Furthermore, Vermont (governor and lieutenant governor), North Caroline (judiciary, yes even judges are still influenced by corporations in most other states), New Mexico (legislator), New Jersey, in addition to the municipal governments of Alburquerque, NM, and Portland, OR. Ask anyone from Arizona and they’ll tell you that their governor, Janet Napolitano, who was elected and reelected on public money, is no ordinary governor. While most politicians will only talk to you if you are in their country club or are willing to significantly donate to their campaign, Governor Napolitano (the first women governor of Arizona) is famous for sitting down and talking to any citizen who has a question or concern. Isn’t this how democracy is supposed to work? We live in a republic, where politicians are supposed to be public (not corporate) servants. As citizens we pay taxes to pay their salaries, so shouldn’t they be held accountable to us.

In New York, Governor Eliot Spitzer laid out in his State of State address his full support for a full public campaign finance system in New York. Citizen Action of New York is leading the way and Democracy Matters Chapters throughout New York, including SLU, are actively fighting to make this ideal a reality. We hope to accomplish this goal by talking to local politicians such as Assemblymen Darrel J. Aubertine, attending New York State lobby day on April 9^th in Albany. We also plan on making educating the SLU community about the benefits and future of clean elections through a panel discussion with members of Democracy Matters, various campus organizations and/or professors.

I must again stress that we are a non-partisan organization. Campaign finance reform is not about any particular political issues but rather an umbrella issue which encompasses all issues currently marginalized by the role of money in politics. We are not against business in this country, we just want to keep business out of politics, and let people run our government rather than money. If any of this appeals to you, if you are sick of what politics has become in this country, and if you’d like to see democracy in action feel free to attend our weekly meetings on the third floor of the student center (room 333) on Tuesday nights at 6.