Kucinich on Campaign Finance
12/12/03
"Banning soft money is a step in the right direction, but doubling hard money limits is a giant step the other way, and one that has received much less attention. The National Voting Rights Institute challenged that change on behalf of a coalition of non-wealthy voters, candidates, and public interest organizations -- including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project and ACORN. That suit alleged, quite accurately, that doubling the hard money limits excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from the political process based on their economic status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution. When only 0.11 percent of the voting age population contributed sums of at least $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate, doubling the limit to $2,000 provides even more power to a tiny financial elite. How much power? Those large contributions amounted to 55.5 percent of the candidates' individual fundraising.
"Think about that. More than half the money driving the political campaigns comes from 1 percent of the people. And we wonder why popular positions, like universal health care or a living wage, are not enacted. Six of the 10 major party candidates for president in 2004 have raised more than 75 percent of their money from contributions of $1,000 or more, and that includes President Bush, who has raised about as much as all the Democrats combined. Most people cannot pay $2,000 to attend a dinner with a candidate. It is very difficult to run for office at all if you are neither rich nor willing to accept money from corporate interests. I know. I'm trying to do it.
"Banning soft money is a positive step which has oddly overshadowed in the media the bigger negative step of doubling hard money. What we need, other than media reform, is true campaign finance reform, complete public financing and the criminalization of bribery."
http://www.kucinich.us/index.php