Adam Bonin, an election law expert, Philadelpia resident, and supporter of Clean Elections writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the iniquities our big donor-dependent campaign finance system creates and how the recent spate of rulings by the Supreme Court are short-sighted and threaten valuable laws that curtail big money's influence

 

From his op-ed:

The majority's rationale rested on the notion that leveling electoral opportunities for less-wealthy candidates was not a legitimate government objective. That's a shame, because the smalldonor revolution that propelled Obama's presidential campaign has not yet reached the state or local levels.

To reform this system, states such as Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have implemented innovative methods to allow candidates to receive a public grant that covers campaign costs in exchange for forgoing private fund-raising.

In order to ensure a fair contest, candidates participating in the system can receive additional grants if their non-participating rivals or outside groups supporting them end up spending funds in excess of the public grant.

The result: a legislature that is more economically diverse than one that proceeded it - with diner waitresses and social workers now joining chambers once reserved for the well-connected - and one that is not beholden to special interests or entrenched wealth.

Clean Elections laws have been resilient to court challenge but as the Court continues to hand down very conservative decisions with respect to money in politics we're going to have to get more vigilant about protecting these laws.