Paul Wellstone, late senator from Minnesota and advocate for public funding of campaigns, often asserted that campaigns and elections are owned by those who pay for them.
If campaigns are financed by PACs (political action committees), then these special interests (rather than the public) “own” the elections. If instead the public pays for the campaign, then it is the public as a whole that can lay a claim to ownership of the electoral process. A similar argument can be made regarding the influence of PACs in other arenas.
In a democratic society made up of a diverse collection of people and interests such as ours, many organized groups will vie for the attention of public officials in an attempt to influence governmental decision making. This is unavoidable and perhaps even beneficial. The freedom of speech guarantees that these voices can be heard. These groups collectively bring a vast array of expertise to the table that government officials cannot possibly possess.
However, the fact remains that not every potential group actually forms to make itself heard. Given that fact, there is an inherent bias in who public officials actually hear from. They hear from the groups that are organized, and these groups, not surprisingly, tend to organize around their own financial interests. They do not speak for the public as a whole.
It perhaps goes without saying that state legislators are supposed to represent the public interest — the interests of their districts and the state as a whole. They are expected to filter through the many self-interested voices and discern, through this competition of ideas, the essential public good. This is the idea of representative democracy. However, surveys of public opinion routinely indicate that the voters are wary of the influence of special interests. Voters worry that special interests corrupt the system and that their interests are more likely to be served than the interests of the voters or the state as a whole.
It seems clear, therefore, that there is a problem and that our public officials themselves must take steps to renew the faith of the public in the work they do. Legislators need to return to the basics: They work for their districts and the state. They do not work for the special interests.
When PACs are allowed to give substantial gifts to public officials such as event tickets or trips, this line becomes blurred. State legislators might honestly argue that gifts from PACs do not influence their votes on legislation. However, the appearance is that PACs give money to public officials who then make decisions on matters that are important to those PACs. It is understandably hard for most people to put aside their skepticism and accept the assertion of their public officials that this doesn’t matter.
Going back to Wellstone’s assertions: If the PACs are paying, then the public might legitimately fear that public officials work for them, rather than for us.
Setting limits on the size of gifts lobbyists are allowed to give and requiring public disclosure of all such gifts will help to renew the faith of the public in the work of our public officials. This faith is essential for the legitimacy of democratic government, and in difficult times especially, the effectiveness of government rests on this legitimacy.
The state of Indiana cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer.
— Margaret R. Ferguson
Chair, IUPUI Department of Political Science
