604

In an op-ed in yesterday's Boston Globe, Sam Waterston (yes, that Sam Waterston) argued for campaign finance reform that would end "pay-to-play politics" — which is, if you're not wealthy enough to make the hefty contributions to political campaigns that corporations make, politicians simply aren't going to listen to you.

Waterston is urging support for the proposed Fair Elections Now Act. While its intention is good, it's more complicated than it needs to be:

Under the proposal, candidates must get a set number of modest donations from people in their community to receive limited Fair Elections funds, coupled with additional small donations matched on a four-to-one basis.

The problem with campaign finance reform laws is that they outsmart themselves through convoluted rules that corporate lawyers have no trouble circumventing. There is one simple, practical, and perfectly reasonable way to achieve real campaign finance reform — allow contributions only from eligible voters.

Corporations don't vote. Why should they be allowed to contribute anything to a campaign? Employees of the corporation who are eligible to vote in a given campaign would of course be able to contribute to candidates in that campaign, up to the allowed limits. And they certainly are free to vote in a way that represents the interests of the corporation and thus their livelihood. But the corporation itself is not a voter, and thus should not be allowed to stuff fat envelopes into the pockets of candidates.

This one reform and its supporting regulations (such as contribution limits, a ban on candidates spending their own money on campaigns, limiting campaign periods to weeks, not months or years), truly would change everything. It would wrest our country from the hands of private corporate interests and put it where it belongs — back into the hands of we the people. As has been heard in the halls of 604 for quite some time now, it's long past time to MOP things up.