Between the Lines Q&A

A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints
on national and international issues
under-reported in mainstream media
for release June 18, 2010

Home | Broadcast-Quality MP3s | Archives | Search BTL Archives
About | Broadcast Schedule | | Squeaky Wheel Productions


U.S. Supreme Court on Course
to Tear Down Campaign Finance Reform Laws

RealAudio MP3

Interview with Nick Nyhart,
co-founder, president and CEO
of Public Campaign,
conducted by Melinda Tuhus

campaignfinance

Courts around the country seem to be invalidating public campaign finance laws as fast as they can be passed. The U.S. Supreme Court on June 8 issued an order reinstating a lower court injunction, preventing the state of Arizona from providing matching funds to candidates for state office to stay on par with the spending of candidates who don't accept public financing, either because they are wealthy and can finance their own campaigns, or they accept large campaign donations from corporations or lobbyists. The Court, which will not likely rule on the case until after this November's mid-term election, issued the injunction stating that Arizona's public financing law puts an unconstitutional burden on the First Amendment rights of privately funded candidates.

According to the group Public Campaign, which has been which has been working to pass public finance laws at both the state and federal levels for the past 13 years, there are currently seven states and two cities that have full public financing for some political offices. Three states -- Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine -- provide full public financing for all statewide and legislative races. These laws were approved through a combination of ballot initiatives and state legislatures.

Between The Lines' Melinda Tuhus spoke with Nick Nyhart, co-founder, president and CEO of Public Campaign. He explains how the Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona's public finance law could affect other states around the country, and how a different funding mechanism in the proposed federal Fair Elections Now Act could pass constitutional muster.

NICK NYHART: This decision will likely have a national impact. There are a number of other states around the country that have clean election systems much like Arizona's, so the logic here is that the Court would react the same way to a challenge on similar provisions in other states, like Maine and Connecticut. Those three states have it for all legislative ofices as well as statewide offices, but there are other states, like North Carolina and New Mexico, that have it for a number of statewide offices, including judicial elections that they have in those states.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Connecticut's public financing law is in limbo right now, awaiting a federal court ruling after a lower court last year ruled it was unconstitutional because of some specific provisions that discriminated against third parties. But it includes the same mechanism for leveling the playing field for candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents, and here in Connecticut we happen to have a lot of millionaires from both parties running for governor and senator this year.

NICK NYHART: We have a lot of people from Greenwich who are millionaires running for statewide office. The whole point of these triggered matching funds was to allow other kinds of candidates to have enough speech so that they could run at a reasonable level and compete for office. So to make a public financing system work, you've got to be able to compete against the Lamonts and the Foleys and the McMahons and other wealthy candidates.So key to a public finance system working is to provide adequate funds. And that's what these triggered systems did. They said, we're not going to let the only people who can speak loudly in elections be personally wealthy or go to every lobbyist in town and shake them all down. And that's the terrible thing about what the Court has done; for a Court that proclaims to be pro-free speech, this is an anti-speech move, unless of course you're a millionaire running for office.

BETWEEN THE LINES: How does this Supreme Court ruliing relate to its much more publicized ruling in January that removed any restrictions on corporate funding of campaigns?

NICK NYHART: That January decision that increased the already huge volume of big money -- wealthy interest money -- in elections...you know, one antidote to that is the fair election system as we call it at the federal level or a clean elections system, as it's been called in a number of states. This decision makes the metrics a little bit different. You have to find another way to provide lots of money for a  candidate who may not have personal assets to run, and fortunately there's a way to do that. In the federal fair elections bill -- I think 153 co-sponsors now in the House, 20 in the Senate -- that has this small donor base kind of matching funds. At the state level where the laws are already in place and working, they have the triggered matching funds that depend on your opponent spending additional money for you, the publicly financed candidate, to get additional money. Those laws at the state level will have to be changed.

BETWEEN THE LINES: You know, Nick Nyhart, unlike the January decision, this ruling seems to have generated very little media coverage. I guess you could say maybe that's because these provisions are in place in so few states. But it just seems like another bold attack on efforts to level the playing field and have truly democratic elections. Do you think the public cares?

NICK NYHART: I think voters in general are outraged about the attitude of the SC as regards big money. This is a Court that in its own terms is pro-free speech for those with lots of money, but hasn't been helping the speech of ordinary citizens. I think that's why people don't like the Supreme Court, which essentially has been an ally not of the Constitution but of the big money forces that now dominate American politics. And the public is outraged about that. I don't think the public follows the details of each decision, but I certainly think there's a public view that this is a Supreme Court that's not on the we-the-people side, but on the side of the most powerful interests in our political structure, and that's the corporations that can spend huge amounts of money influencing campaigns.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Public Campaign -- and you as the founding president -- have been working on this issue for 13 years. What's the status of progress?

NICK NYHART: In fact, two states this year -- Wisconsin and West Virginia -- passed public financing laws similar to those in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, that were a first step on public financing in those states -- they applied to statewide judicial races. So there continues to be progress at the state level. And there are probably 12 or 15 states where legislation is likely to be introduced next year on this issue, or probably even a larger number on other aspects of reform. I think the biggest progress to date has been made at the federal level, and when you look at the oil industry and its giving -- how the political system allowed a company like BP to do deep drilling without sufficient safeguards in place, and with very, very limited liability -- $75 million. That was all the doing of the US Congress and previous administrations that worked hand in glove with the oil industry instead of regulating it for the ordinary taxpayer's sake. You look at financial regulations and the battle that's going on there, and Wall Street coming in with lobbying and campaign money, to push back against common-sense reforms. So I think at the federal level, the kinds of problems that we see on the front pages of the news every day, are also big money in politics problems. So there has been a galvanizing -- really, since the (January) Supreme Court decision -- of new efforts to blunt the impact of corporate money. And one of the biggest ones of those is the Fair Elections Now Act, which is steadily gaining support in the House and could win a House vote this year and be sent on to the Senate. Whether it passes in the Senate with 60 votes -- it's going to be tight between now and the elections. We may have to wait for a full victory 'til next year. But a House victory is definitely winnable this year. And that would be huge news. It would be the biggest campaign finance victory in 35 years.

Contact Public Campaign by calling (202) 293-0222 or visit their website at www.publiccampaign.org.

Related links: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Harris is an executive producer of Between The Lines, which can be heard on more than 50 radio stations and in RealAudio and MP3 on our website at http://www.btlonline.org. This interview excerpt was featured on the award-winning, syndicated weekly radio newsmagazine, Between The Lines for the week ending June 25, 2010. This Between The Lines Q&A was compiled by Melanie Muller and Anna Manzo.

To donate to Between The Lines, please send your check made payable to "The Global Center" and mail to:
Squeaky Wheel Productions
P.O. Box 110176
Trumbull, CT 06611

To get details on subscribing to the radio program, contact us at (203) 268-8446.

Home | Broadcast-Quality MP3s | Archives | Search BTL Archives
About | Broadcast Schedule | | Squeaky Wheel Productions

(c) Copyright 2010 Squeaky Wheel Productions. All rights reserved.