Huffington Magazine Issue 72 | Page 57

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.