Jackie Aase

Port Townsend

Are you fed up with the ever increasing amount of money spent on elections and on lobbying of our elected officials? A poll conducted by Ipsos, one of the world's leading market research firms, in June 2016 found “81 percent of Democratic and 79 percent of Republican respondents support their members of Congress working with the opposing party to reduce the influence of money in politics.”

Seventy percent of the respondents said that our democracy is at risk.

Our present system is a dismal failure, but it hasn’t always been that way. Power and greed have always been a threat to democracy. The first federal campaign finance legislation was passed in 1867, followed by the Tillman Act in 1907, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in 1925, the Hatch Act in 1939, Taft-Hartley in 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. And remember, we used to have the fairness doctrine that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a balanced manner — as a public service.

How did we get to where we are today? Enter the Supreme Court.

The League of Women Voters Washington completed a “tool kit” last September to help connect the dots. It starts with overviews of the historical background of court cases, especially, the 2010 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC). It describes how the ruling affects corporate freedoms and the rights of individual citizens, and the amounts, types, sources and disclosure of money spent in our political process.

The tool kit points out how four federal regulatory agencies (Federal Elections Commission, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Communications Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission) already have legal jurisdiction that allows them to curb campaign spending and how they are thwarted from doing so by Congress. It documents the voting records of our elected officials in regard to campaign finance reform, disclosure, transparency and public funding of elections on both the federal and state levels.

How have these Supreme Court rulings affected the citizens of Washington state? The tool kit reports on the ongoing attempt by the Grocery Manufacturers Association to dismantle our Washington state public disclosure laws. It explains how we can protect and strengthen the integrity of Washington state Public Disclosure Commission to ensure a level playing field and prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption in the electoral processes.

The tool kit gives five examples of how individual wealth has played a role in getting initiatives and/or referendums on the ballot in Washington state. There is a section on how special interests secretively spend to affect the passage or defeat of our state initiatives, and a section on the impact of campaign donations on candidate races and how it has influenced the behavior of some candidates and elected officials. Check it out at lwvwacutoolkit.org.

This November we have a unique opportunity to speak out on these matters. There are two initiatives on the ballot related to campaign finance reform. Initiative 735 proposes a constitutional amendment that “clarifies constitutional rights belong only to individuals, not corporations; that spending money is not free speech under the First Amendment; that governments are fully empowered to regulate political contributions and expenditures to prevent undue influence; and that political contributions and expenditures must be promptly disclosed to the public.”

Initiative 1464 proposes public funding of elections to be paid for by repeal of the nonresident sales tax exemption, would limit private donations and the use of personal funding of campaigns, would limit the revolving door for lobbyists, penalize candidates or campaigns that violate campaign finance laws, lower contribution limits by government contractors, and require identification of the top five contributors in political advertising and other campaign communications.

There is to be a forum on this issue at 7 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 13 at the Port Townsend Community Center.

John Gardner said, “The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to live, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can.”

(Jackie Aase has lived in Port Townsend since 1989. She works at Eaglemount Wine & Cider and Jefferson County Cannabis. She is current secretary of the League of Women Voters–Jefferson County.)