U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet introduced a bill last week to ban members of Congress from seeking campaign contributions from lobbyists while Congress is in session. It may go nowhere, but Bennet is right to continue to highlight the issue of campaign contributions.
Bennet accurately described why that matters. “The unlimited, unchecked and anonymous spending has paralyzed Congress,” he said. “It has been unable to tackle the big issues, whether it is reforming the tax code, updating our energy policy or fixing our immigration system.”
Money has long had a key role in politics, but the situation was aggravated in 2010 with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. That opened the door for political action committees to accept unlimited amounts of money from donors including corporations and unions.
That year, so-called Super PACs raised more than $89 million to spend on or against candidates of both parties. In 2014, that number topped $696 million. The Washington, D.C., think tank Public Citizen estimates that more than $10 billion will be spent on the 2016 presidential and congressional races.
The problem is two-fold. Not only can that kind of money corrupt individual lawmakers and the system itself, it is of necessity a huge distraction.
Bennet knows that all too well. As chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the 2014 election cycle, he had an up-close view of the process. That job included both a significant amount of fundraising and encouraging Democratic candidates to increase their efforts to raise money.
For lawmakers today, it is a never-ending task. Fundraising consumes hours of every day and, at some point, has to become their primary focus – ahead of their constituents’ interests, legislation or even campaigning. As the head of one campaign-finance reform group told The Durango Herald, “They spend most of their time talking to wealthy individuals, most of whom are not even in their district.”
One irony is that while Bennet is rightly concerned about the corrosive effect of constant fundraising, he also seems good at it. He has raised more than $2 million in the first quarter of this year alone. That skill should make him hard to beat in 2016.
But it also puts the problem in perspective: One senator raised $2 million in one quarter. That is more than $22,000 per day, every day.
What is more, the Center for Responsive Politics says that most of Bennet’s financial support comes from New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. In that he is probably no different than any other senator. Those who can donate the kind of money involved tend to be concentrated in familiar seats of power.
Bennet is also far from the most successful Senate fundraiser. There are different ways to measure, but OpenSecrets.org (from the Center for Responsive Politics) puts him 30th in total dollars. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., top the list with totals respectively triple and double Bennet’s.
But even with all that, there seems to be little interest in real change. Through the years, Bennet has introduced a series of bills aimed at aspects of campaign-finance reform. Most died before making it to a vote.
Bennet should keep at it nonetheless. His cause may be quixotic, but it is right. It is dangerous and wrong for a few wealthy donors to be of such importance to lawmakers, and it is wasteful for legislators to spend so much time and energy on an activity that does nothing for the nation.