The emerging fundraising rebellion

This is a year of political rebellions. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are the two biggest examples. And one of the few issues that unites them is driving the other rebellion: a rejection of political fundraising.

Some members have compared the endless need for campaign cash to torture. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who wrote in the New York Times a few months ago that he spent 4,200 hours in the last 16 years asking for money, equated dialing for dollars to “waterboarding.”

{mosads}Because lawmakers are forbidden from raising money in their Capitol Hill offices, they have to trek elsewhere to do it—many of them spend up to four hours a day in what Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) referred to as, “about the worst looking, most abusive looking call center situation I’ve seen in my life.”

It’s not just individual lawmakers who are trapped in this hell; both political parties enforce these rules from the top-down. Just a few weeks ago, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie likened the requirement to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in “dues” to various political party coffers to “extortion.” House member Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) remarked: “It is clear that political party fundraising has been moved directly into Congress, at levels never imagined by our founders.”

Retiring three-term Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) was blunt in the Huffington Post about how the endless hunt for money and donors repels good people from office: “Why would you want to do this stupid job if you had to do that?”

It’s a good question. Here’s a similarly good one: “Would I rather this tyranny of super PACs didn’t exist? Yes.” That’s Mel Immergut, who has donated tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.

He represents the second front of the rebellion: the donors. They are just as burned out as the politicians. “I think that many people in the New York donor community, which is the one I know best, would be strong supporters,” of some sort of political fundraising reform, Immergut postulated.

Need more evidence? Prominent lobbyist Ed Rogers wrote in the Washington Post: “I’m embarrassed by our campaign finance system. And as a long-time participant in the system, for me to get here, it must be pretty bad.”

Meanwhile the third and largest front of the rebellion—the American people—have been clamoring for change for years. Eighty-four percent of Americans think money has too much influence in political campaigns, according to a CBS News poll—an overwhelming majority comprised of 80 percent Republicans, 90 percent Democrats and 84 percent independents. In addition, nearly eight in 10 say they would vote for limiting the amount of money House and Senate candidates could raise and spend for their campaigns.

So if everyone is in agreement that this is a problem, what are our elected leaders waiting for?

President Obama has paid lip service to executive order that would at least shine sunlight one major source of campaign contributions: companies that do business with the government. It would require these companies to disclose their political contributions. But he has yet to deliver. In Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan admitted Republicans need to do more to address cronyism, which is responsible for billions in wasted taxpayer dollars doled out to influential businesses each year. On the campaign trail, both presumptive nominees in the presidential race talk about the issue, but Hillary Clinton rarely campaigns on her platform she says will curb the influence of special interests in money in politics, and Donald Trump has not released a formal policy on the issue.

Some in Congress have been bold enough to find bipartisan fixes to our electoral process, and need significantly more support from their colleagues to make them a reality. For one, Reps. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) and Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) suggested overhauling the dysfunctional Federal Election Commission, which oversees political fundraising activities. Republican David Jolly (Fla.) and Democrat Rick Nolan (Minn.) targeted Congress itself when they introduced the Stop Act: it would to prevent members of Congress from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

And a handful of Senate Democrats introduced a package of bills last week aimed at enhancing donor disclosure and permanently banning former members of Congress from Lobbying.

“This package, We the People, that we’re announcing today is to break through the doors of Republican indifference, to bring a little sunlight into these dark new corners of politics, and to undo the evils of Citizens United,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

These lawmakers should be praised, but until majorities in both parties come together to pass real solutions on behalf of the American people, the rebellion will continue to grow and become more vocal.

We need to create the conditions in Congress that allow its members to focus on the issues most important to the country, with the time to negotiate and find common ground amongst themselves. Until our lawmakers can vote in the best interests of their constituents, without the fear that millions in unaccountable special interest money will be unleashed to attack them, the rebellion will roll on.   

Nick Penniman is the Executive Director of Issue One, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to reduce the influence of money in politics. Follow them on Twitter and Facebook.