Radically Revise Campaign Laws to Give People, Not Billionaires, a Voice

Richard L. Hasen

Richard L. Hasen, a professor at U.C. Irvine School of Law, writes the Election Law Blog. He is also the author of "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections."

Updated November 3, 2016, 2:29 PM

It’s not a new story: Some Americans are looking to the super wealthy to get us out of a political jam. This time, it might be billionaire Michael Bloomberg supposedly saving the country from a Donald Trump-Bernie Sanders race that could leave many voters without an acceptable alternative. Back in 1967, it was the GM heir Stewart Mott providing (what was then considered to be) lots of money to allow Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota to challenge President Lyndon B. Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Johnson, mired in the Vietnam War and wounded by McCarthy, eventually withdrew from the race.

We'd rely less on rich white knights If each voter in each election got $100 in publicly financed vouchers for political contributions.

Indeed, in this election cycle Donald Trump has railed against the super PACs and argued that only he, a billionaire, can serve the interests of the American people fairly because he is too rich to be influenced by big donors.

The McCarthy-Mott story is one that opponents of campaign finance limits point to in arguing against campaign finance limits. They contend we need billionaires at the ready in case our democracy gets in trouble.

But over-reliance on plutocrats threatens our democracy. In the 2012 elections, we saw Sheldon Adelson and his wife spend between $98 million to $150 million to support Republican candidates. Adelson single-handedly gave Newt Gingrich multiple additional shots at the Republican nomination, not because that’s what Republican voters wanted but because that is what the Adelsons wanted. Tom Steyer, who supports candidates who will take action on climate change, spent $75 million trying to help Democrats hold on to their Senate majority in 2014. The Koch Brothers network has pledged to spend just under $900 million on the 2016 elections.

The super wealthy who would bail us out have different views than the rest of us. One study found that the top 1 percent have views different from ordinary Americans: The wealthy are much less likely to support higher taxes on the rich, a decent social safety net and a minimum wage that is high enough to keep people out of poverty.

To deal with potential political crises, we need a more democratic way to fund our elections. Imagine if we gave every voter in each election $100 in publicly financed vouchers to donate to candidates, political parties and interest groups. Then elections would depend less on the whims of billionaire white knights or on those who now donate to campaigns and who tend to have more extreme views than the average voter. The program would be expensive, but it is worth it given the mess the Supreme Court has given us with our campaign finance laws.

Through campaign finance vouchers, the American people can give up their dependence on billionaires and be their own white knight.


Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

Topics: campaign finance, elections, inequality

Could Bloomberg and His Millions Save Us From Ourselves?

Could a capable nonpartisan billionaire fix our damaged political system needs or just give rich people more power? Read More »

Debaters