EMAIL DETAILS

I agree, but would go a step further. Money in politics is not philosophically neutral. It disproportionately flows from interests who don't want the government to work, who want to shrink government to reduce its role regulating things like safety and pollution, who want lower taxes so they can starve government and reduce its effectiveness, who believe we should cut programs like food stamps and head start because they do not reward work.

I don't believe, as this article suggests, that "gridlock" just happened to us because too much money flowed in from all directions. Gridlock is precisely the result that very well organized, increasingly sophisticated and very strategic conservative power brokers like the Koch brothers (and many more less well known to the public) intend -- to grind the machinery of government to a halt.
I
________________________________
From: Glickman, Dan <Dan.Glickman@aspeninstitute.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:06:46 PM
To: Hunter Biden (hbiden@rosemontseneca.com); Randy Russell (rrussell@russellgroupdc.com) (rrussell@russellgroupdc.com); Samuel Berger
Subject: FW: The McCutcheon Ruling: Is That All There Is, My Friends?

Hi folks. I am not sure everyone will agree with me, but I had to get this off my chest. Best, Dan

From: Farrar, Douglas
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 2:16 PM
To: Glickman, Dan
Subject: The McCutcheon Ruling: Is That All There Is, My Friends?


The McCutcheon Ruling: Is That All There Is, My Friends?
By Dan Glickman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-glickman/the-mccutcheon-ruling-is_b_5085095.html


I'm disappointed with the results of yesterday's ruling on McCutcheon v. FEC, as the Supreme Court strikes yet another blow against badly needed campaign finance law. But I am also exceptionally disappointed with the public reaction. Everything is within the context of the insider, beltway game of politics. Did the lobbyists win or lose? How will this affect mega-donors like Sheldon Adelson? Did the parties become more relevant than the super PACs? Did senior legislators get a leg up on fundraising? I haven't seen one person ask the most important question: what does this mean for the American people and the government that is supposed to work for them? The discussion centers totally around the "game" of politics, and who wins and loses among the players. No one asks, "how do the people fare?"


My experience with these types of campaign finance decisions is that we rarely understand the true impact until years into the future. McCain-Feingold didn't pan out as expected and the ramifications of the Citizens United decision are still unfolding in our electoral process. But ultimately no matter how this ruling plays out, more money in the political system is probably not a good thing for this country.


That's the real issue at stake and it is almost as if we have collectively given up being shocked or outraged by ridiculous sums of money in our political system. The impact of more money, be it super PAC money, individual mega-donor money, or lobbyist money is not healthy. More money will only further limit our government's ability to solve any of the myriad problems before us and produce continued gridlock. Nowhere in the analysis of the McCutcheon decision do I see anything about how it will impact federal policy making to address our crumbling infrastructure, improve our education system, fund crucial scientific and medical research and a litany of other problems the country has to deal with. Most of the money fundraised in electoral politics is used to finance negative media ads which tend to tear down political candidates and rarely builds confidence that the system is working well. Money used in this way further erodes what little confidence the American people have that our political system is on the level for the 300 million Americans who can never dream of busting the current cap on contributions.


Responses to this ruling all look to the future for insiders. For the roughly 600 people who maxed out their contributions to political campaigns (of which nearly 200 live in the Washington metropolitan area), this may have big implications for their work, their bottom lines, their business portfolios and so forth. Of course the result of this ruling could also change the way legislators themselves approach possible donors. But all of this is insignificant and unimportant compared to the effect that more big money will have on actual Americans.

I recognize that it has been said that, "money is the mother's milk of politics," but that doesn't have to mean it is the entire food chain. Politics should not be just some inside game played by Washington powerbrokers and campaigns chasing dollars. Campaign finance laws comprise a key element of the ground rules for our political system to operate in a world where American leadership in the domestic and international arena are needed now more than ever. It is quite clear to me that once you view this ruling outside the game of politics, this ruling is more bad news for almost every American. Years ago the singer Peggy Lee sang the song, "Is That All There Is (my friends)?" She wasn't talking about campaign dollars but it is worth asking if all there is to politics is money, or is the public good also important?