Last week, billionaire George Soros wrote a $1-million check to Priorities USA Action, President Barack Obama’s super PAC. Earlier in the Republican primaries, we saw wealthy individuals spend millions to single-handedly prop up their favorite candidate.

The current state of American campaign finance threatens our democratic process.

Shadowy and powerful super PACs spend huge sums of money to elect candidates and destroy opponents. It’s a serious problem affecting both parties, and it contributes to the venomous political atmosphere in Washington.

Still think the Electoral College is our biggest problem?

The only way to fix our campaign finance mess is to give the power — and money — back to the candidates themselves. By increasing contribution limits to individual candidates, we would centralize campaign financing and make the process infinitely more transparent.

Under Federal Election Commission rules, an individual may give up to $2,500 to any federal candidate or candidate committee per election.
While most contributions aren’t for the maximum amount, those wishing to give more must find other outlets. These donors shift money from the crystal clear waters of candidate committees to the dark pools of super PACs.

But if the individual limit for candidates was raised to, say, $30,000 — the maximum for national party committees — more money would funnel to candidates themselves. This direct, free-market approach gives candidates more control of campaign messages and more responsibility. Hyper-partisan super PACs would have less influence and we’d see fewer ads likening Obama to Che Guevara and Mitt Romney to Charles Montgomery Burns.

Corporations and unions should also be able to contribute directly to candidate campaigns under these individual rules. We’d see the most immediate effects in congressional and senate races, as local businesses and unions could directly support their favorite candidates, in the open. Right now, these funds filter through national organizations and super PACs, which can only affect races with third-party ads.

Stephen Colbert illuminated the dubious nature of super PACs in forming one of his own, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.” He lampooned the absurd notion that super PACs don’t directly coordinate with candidates or political parties, partnering with fellow funnyman Jon Stewart, who acted as PAC president.

”Stephen (Colbert) and I have in no way have worked out a series of Morse-code blinks to convey information with each other on our respective shows,” Stewart said.

Democrats often complain about the money involved in political campaigns, but won’t give up control of their war chests. These same politicians, like Obama, have also refused public financing, knowing they can raise much more through private fundraising. I don’t blame them.

Campaign finance laws need to mitigate the effects of the Citizens United decision as much as possible, but keep intact the ability for individual candidates to raise needed funds.

Imagine we were each given $100 and told to make a political donation. Wouldn’t we all choose a candidate or party committee over a super PAC?

We know candidates and hold them accountable for their actions. 

Citizens can’t vote out an incumbent super PAC or ask it to support certain legislation. Super PACs don’t hold town hall meetings or answer tough interview questions.

That’s why, in the world of campaign finance, politicians just might be the good guys.



Jared Kraham is a senior political science and broadcast journalism major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at jmkraham@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @JaredKraham.

Published on October 7, 2012 at 10:44 am