TOM WILLIAMS/CQ ROLL CALL/GETTY IMAGES
CRACKING
THE CODE
“It is completely focused on
the role of the citizen in financing
elections in a post-Citizens United
world, and it is designed to empower them and encourage their
participation by making their contributions much more important,”
Wertheimer said.
Whereas the previous generation of reformers had attempted
to get money out of politics, the
current efforts aim to change the
nature of fundraising rather than
to end it completely.
“What’s great about matching
funds is it still incentivizes candidates to build real grassroots
support in perpetuity to get more
and more matching funds, and it
signals to the little guy that their
small-dollar contribution can
make a big difference,” Progressive
Change Campaign Committee cofounder Adam Green said.
Lessig simply rejects the basic
premise behind previous reform
efforts. “I just think it’s terrible to
think about creating a First Amendment that says that money is not
speech,” he said. “That’s just crazy.”
Not everyone in the reform
community agrees, however, that
the Sarbanes bill represents the
full realization of the small-donor
empowerment model created in
HUFFINGTON
10.27.13
New York City.
Veteran reform groups in Washington, led by Wertheimer, back
competing legislation put forward
by Reps. David Price (D-N.C.) and
Van Hollen, which would provide
a 5-to-1 match on the first $250 of
any contribution up to $1,250 for
congressional candidates. It would
also provide a similar small-donor
matching system for presidential
elections and clarify the law restricting coordination between
super PACs and candidates.
Other progressive groups argue that the Price-Van Hollen
bill would continue to empower
big donors more than small donors. Green called the bill “weak
and ineffective.”
Money “plays
a spoiling
role in
campaigns,”
according
to NAACP
senior vice
president
for advocacy
Hilary
Shelton.