Colorado’s Democracy for the People Initiative is in full swing as the midterm elections are quickly nearing. This citizen-initiated proposed ordinance is trekking into fiery terrain by advocating for increased government transparency, prohibition of corporate contributions, decreased contribution limits and a small donor matching program.
This group strives for government transparency on a city level so that “outside funds” will be disclosed. At the core of this argument is the belief that the people have a right to know who is funding the candidates. A concept such as this one will mainly serve to keep the candidate on his or her toes. It’s a stretch to see government transparency—on this level—have much of an impact on who voters vote for. Transparency will become irrelevant if we prohibit corporate contributions, decrease contribution limits and use a small donor matching program. It can be argued that transparency is present to keep an eye on politicians and watch out for corruption, but the three other changes will make it virtually impossible for any “side business” to happen, so it wouldn’t be necessary for citizens to see the contributions if the maximum contribution can only be $50.
The Democracy for the People Act would prohibit direct corporate contributions for city elections. Numerous studies have been conducted, primarily on the federal level, to discover the connection between corporate campaign funds and its influence on the candidates decisions. A paper by Roosevelt Institute, titled “Fifty Shades of Green: High Finance, Political Money, and the U.S. Congress,” studied a 2006 vote on net neutrality in the telecommunications industry. Roosevelt Institute found that every $1000 in contributions from an anti-net-neutrality firm equated to a 2.6 percent increased probability that they’ll vote in favor of the firm. Clearly, there’s a connection.
This leads us to the next idea: decreased contribution limits. If contributions are limited to minute numbers, there wouldn’t be much room for influence. It begs the question, is transparency that necessary so people can know that X from Leadville, Colo. donated $50?
Perhaps the most controversial of all changes is the small donor matching program. Qualified candidates can choose to opt in for the donor matching program. If they choose to participate in it, they can no longer accept special interest funds. The bulk of the campaign money will come from Colorado’s residents. In a 9:1 ratio, Denver will match the contributions of the residents. There will be a contribution limit of $50 per resident. So, that $50 will actually be $500. The small donor program wouldn’t raise taxes; it would require 0.02 percent of Denver’s annual budget, which translates to $3 per resident, yearly.
All of this is done in an attempt to put the power back into the hands of the people. Idealistically, this may appear like a smart way to go about campaigning, but there are a few hurdles that cannot easily be bypassed. Let’s not forget about the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. Supreme Court case, and many others, reiterating that corporations are viewed as individuals. It’s also relevant to note that the CO Democracy for the People is redundant in its claims. By acquiring a small donor matching program, it will inadvertently cause decreased contribution limits (since the maximum is $50), and it would therefore prohibit corporate contributions because they couldn’t contribute with a small donor matching program, and the government would be more transparent because we’d know that it’s just the residents contributing the $50 to the candidate.
Anything pertaining to politics tends to become overly complicated and multifaceted. For groups such as Democracy for the People, they’re shooting for the stars, but first they need to get out of the clouds.
