Big Business Can’t Afford to Bankroll Our Elections

By Damon Circosta
Published: Apr. 13, 2009

RALEIGH - You might say that my father-in-law and I occupy different worlds. He is the CFO for a development company and I work at a nonprofit organization dedicated to election reform.

I grew up in some far-out places like southern California and he comes from the rural Midwest. We run in different social circles and have different backgrounds, but you would be surprised about some of the things we agree on.

Take campaign finance. While our dinner conversations don’t often revolve around election reform, the subject has come up before. You would think that as a card-carrying member of “big business” my father-in-law would be opposed to the work I do trying to reform our campaign system. A typical criticism of business folks is that they are trying to buy government and use their campaign contributions to curry favor with politicians.

So you can imagine my surprise last summer when my father-in-law told me how happy he is about the campaign finance reform we are working on. “Things need to change,” he said. “Why should business and other interest groups be the ones left holding the bag when it comes to campaigns?”

He has a point. According to a recent Elon University poll, only 33 percent of North Carolinians gave any money at all to a candidate in the last election. Even in what was billed as a historic election with record participation, only one in three of us gave money to a candidate. And while most of us didn’t give, those who did gave in amounts your average person couldn’t afford. According to the poll, three-fourths of those who gave parted with more than $100. A quarter gave $500 or more.

Large contributions have effectively drowned out the small contributor. Even the Obama campaign, whose fundraising operation was heralded as the resurgence of small-dollar donors, took in more than half of its funds in amounts of $200 or more.

Make no mistake. Businesses and other interest groups are looking for a return on their investment of campaign dollars. Sometimes contributors will give to both candidates in an election in an effort to be sure they can enjoy access to their elected official, regardless of who wins.

This quest for access from business and others who can afford to give to campaigns, coupled with the diminishing role of the small-dollar donor, has led to a two-tiered campaign system where both sides are frustrated. On one hand, those of us who can’t afford a large donation grumble about the disproportionate influence that big money has on campaigns. On the other hand, a very small minority of Americans is essentially footing the entire bill for political campaigns.

On Election Day every vote is counted equally. But equality is not a cardinal feature of our campaign finance system. Our current setup is such that only the voices of those willing and able to pony up large sums get heard. The good news is that there are ways to fix the campaign finance system. Giving candidates opportunities to get their message out without relying on purchased media is one idea. Creating a true system of public financing is another.

My father-in-law and I might not see eye to eye on which reform will be most effective, but we agree that the system needs fixing. And if two people from such different backgrounds can agree on that, we can certainly get this done.