This article originally appeared in the
September/October 2014 issue of Horizons, the magazine for Presbyterian Women.
To subscribe or learn more, visit www.pcusa.org/horizons
To Change
the Power Behind the Law
By Leslie G. Woods
Having served in the
ecumenical advocacy community for nearly 10 years, I find that I need ways to
keep my spirits up. The work of advocacy (as a good friend of mine says) is a
marathon, not a sprint. At times, the long, grinding haul of justice-making seems
hopeless. But as the prophet Nelson Mandela once said, “It always seems
impossible until it’s done.”
One of my favorite
biblical reminders of the power of tenacity is the story of the persistent
widow and the unjust judge. In Luke 18:1–8, Jesus tells the story of a widow
seeking justice against her adversary from a judge who does not “fear God or
care for people.” The widow keeps coming back, demanding justice, until finally
the judge grants her suit—not because she convinces him of the merits of her
case, but because her continual advocacy wearies him. She eventually receives
justice through her persistence—a potent reminder to all of us who engage in
advocacy for justice.
But what if the unjust
judge were being paid to deny justice? What if the unjust judge, in order to
keep his position of power, needed to refuse the merits of the widow’s case?
What if her adversary was not simply the lone judge, but the political or
social engine that empowered the judge and benefitted from the judge’s rulings?
What then would have happened to the widow and her quest for justice?
In all likelihood, she
would have been denied justice. The judge would have continued to ignore her
just case and appeased the special interest backing his power. Regardless of what
the widow said or did, the judge would have denied her justice.
The Shifting Paradigm of Advocacy
Of course, rewriting Bible
stories is not what we do in the PC(USA) Office of Public Witness, where I
serve as the representative for domestic poverty and environmental issues. We advocate
for justice. In the more than nine years that I have been doing faith-based
advocacy, I have worked on antipoverty programs, the federal budget and tax
code, justice for workers, economic inequality, health care reform, environmental
justice, climate disruption, clean energy, food justice, violence against women
and children, public education and immigration.
It is a broad portfolio and
there have been some true victories for justice during my tenure. But more and
more, I find that my workshops include an admonition that sounds something like
“If we don’t work to get the special interest money out of politics, we will
never achieve a ____ bill.” In the blank space, name your favorite justice
issue: comprehensive immigration reform, a national climate justice plan, tax
reform, gun violence prevention, prison reform or any other of the myriad
fundamental reform concerns. These pressing justice issues have caught the
attention of advocates, but have also caught the interest of special interest
groups who are willing to spend to bring about particular outcomes. For true
justice, we must first reduce the undue influence of special-interest spending
in policymaking.
Law and Power
Which comes first: law or
power? Certainly, laws need power to be enforced. But for this article, I am
more interested in the power at play while a law is being made. When the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) speaks to the creation of laws, our positions are
rooted in Christian values and the authority of Presbyterian General
Assemblies. Many advocacy groups speak to the creation of laws out of
conviction or concern for the welfare of others. Still others speak out of
self-interest or special interest. Some special interests—though by no means all—speak
to the creation of laws with a goal of furthering profit or currying favor.
Even nefarious ends may propel a person or group to speak to the creation,
continuation or repeal of a law.
It frequently comes down
to what creates power. Is it, as suggested above, morality or conviction,
concern or welfare, profit or favor? Each of these motivations may compel some
special interest or another; each has the capacity to create power and, hence,
law.
Sadly, our system of
legislation, justice and executive power has tipped too far to one side. We
have allowed our system to move away from a code of laws based on conviction
and welfare—as outlined in our Constitution—to one that is unduly influenced by
whomever has the deepest pockets.
We have a system in which
the cost of running for office requires exorbitant spending, personal wealth
and donations from those who can afford to pay. And that financial support
usually comes with strings attached, whether expressly stated, implicitly felt
or simply created out of a sense of obligation and gratitude.
As the 218th General
Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) said,
Large
sums of money, and the time needed to raise it, dominate our electoral and
legislative processes. Money buys access to legislators as well as to the
details in legislation. If they reject special interest money, candidates fear
that their opponents will outspend them—and spending counts: incumbents almost
always raise more money than challengers, and the candidate who spends the most
money almost always wins. (For House seats, the number is more than 90
percent.) Because the Supreme Court has ruled [that] campaign contributions are
a protected form of “speech,” the most
important reform to enhance the voice of citizens and reduce the role of
powerful special interests and big money in elections is public financing. Under
such systems, candidates or parties receive public funds to replace or augment
private money. Public funding can curb the appearance of the influence of big
money over lawmakers, encourage candidates with limited resources to run for
office, and allow politicians to spend less time raising money and more time
serving their constituents [emphasis added].
The Money Behind the Power
According to an analysis
in Lo$ing Faith in Our Democracy: A
Theological Critique of the Role of Money in American Politics, published
by Auburn Seminary, “more than $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections.
That’s a lot of money in American politics. And that figure only includes
election campaigns expenses—it doesn’t include funds spent on lobbying or
advocacy” (1). According to the footnote,
“[O]f
that figure, $970 million was spent by outside groups, that is, groups
supposedly unaffiliated with a political party. . . . The Alaska Dispatch analyzed the presidential election expenses
into dollars spent per registered voter, and found that the combined spending
of the Obama and Romney campaigns amounted to $11.75 per voter. That figure is
more than double, in inflation adjusted dollars, the $5 per voter that the
Reagan and Carter campaigns spent in 1980.”
The study notes that the
influence of money in human politics is as old as the Bible, and likely as old
as human civilization, but this doubling of U.S. presidential campaign spending
in just 30 years is astronomical, not to mention unsustainable.
Decreased transparency in
campaign and other political spending, as permitted by Supreme Court cases such
as Citizens United and McCutcheon, makes it even more difficult
for the voting citizen to sift through the propaganda and make an informed
decision with his or her vote. And I’m learning that many people feel that their
vote is less valuable than it used to be. “It doesn’t matter whom I vote for,
it won’t make a difference in Washington anyway,” I hear regularly. Many voters
(or those who don’t bother) feel that the voices, opinions and convictions of
real people who are engaged in honest debate are drowned out by the volume of special
interest money. This development in American politics is not serving people,
only profit. This is a true problem in today’s political landscape and the
failure of the current system.
In an op-ed published
earlier this year, Diane Randall of the Friends Committee on National
Legislation and Patrick Carolan of the Franciscan Action Network wrote,
More
often than should be true in a democracy, money appears to speak more loudly
than the voices of the electorate on these and other values-based issues. The
wealthiest 0.01 percent of the voting age population now account for 40 percent
of all campaign contributions. When money talks, it almost inevitably makes a
difference in the decisions elected officials make. If money is doing the
talking, it is unlikely to fairly represent needs for housing, health care and
decent wages for people who cannot take those things for granted.1
Indeed, people of faith
are beginning to challenge such disproportion in the brokerage of power in our
political system. Polls vary, of course, but a recent survey reported by Time magazine showed that
[A]
majority of likely voters among Democrats (75%), Independents (64%) and
Republicans (54%) see the wave of spending by Super PACs this election cycle as
“wrong and leads to our elected officials representing the views of wealthy
donors.” So far in the 2014 election cycle, Super PACs, which can raise
unlimited sums from donors, have spent $87.5 million and counting to influence
election outcomes.2
It will only be through
addressing this deficit of the people’s voice in politics that we will affect
the choices made by those who hold power and are in a position to create law.
Leslie G. Woods serves as
the representative for domestic poverty and environmental issues in the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Office of Public Witness in Washington, DC.
This article originally appeared in the
September/October 2014 issue of Horizons, the magazine for Presbyterian Women.
To subscribe or learn more, visit www.pcusa.org/horizons
Notes
1. “Faith groups push back on role of money in politics,” www.thehill.com, February 18, 2014. http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/198643-faith-groups-push-back-on-role-of-money-in-politics#ixzz3ADEzfQ89.
2. “Poll: Support for Campaign Finance Reform Strong in Key Senate Races,” Time, July 31, 2014. http://time.com/3063942/poll-support-for-campaign-finance-reform-strong-in-key-senate-races.
