Milwaukee, WI
The health and integrity of our democracy depend, in large measure, on fair and open federal elections that command public confidence and encourage full citizen participation. Those goals are thwarted by our system of financing campaigns. We must fundamentally reform that system so that wealth no longer yields disproportionate influence. Citizens must be able to make their voices heard regardless of how much money they bring to bear on the process.
The AFL-CIO believes that fundamental reform of our campaign finance system is necessary to eliminate unfair and undeserved financial advantage, protect constitutional freedoms, and encourage openness and integrity in political debate and contests. Reform must be comprehensive; piecemeal changes have simply prompted big money to find new outlets.
Working families influence elections by making their voices heard on candidates and issues, volunteering their time, and exercising their right to vote. Working families participate in public affairs most effectively when they join together, through their unions, to review the records and positions of candidates and mobilize for political and legislative action. Their activism is a potent counterweight to the power of money. Meanwhile, union members who wish to contribute funds directly to pro-worker candidates do so by combining individual contributions of typically small amounts in labor political action committees that amplify and focus their modest individual resources.
In 1997, the Executive Council issued a policy statement, "Campaign Finance Reform," that advocated numerous measures. The Council has revisited the issue in light of electoral tactics and legislative developments since then. The AFL-CIO believes comprehensive reform must include at least the following seven elements:
- Public Financing of Campaigns
Primary and general election, congressional, as well as presidential campaigns, ought to be publicly financed in order to reduce the impact of money and to free candidates to campaign rather than raise funds. Modest, limited individual and PAC contributions should be allowed only as a prerequisite for a candidate to meet a qualifying threshold to receive public funds. And special provision should be made for candidates who oppose wealthy candidates who substantially self-finance their campaigns.
- Limitations on Individual Contributions to Candidates and Parties
The current limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and parties should be maintained or reduced, even absent public financing. Proposals to increase these limits would only magnify the disproportionate influence of private wealth.
-
Restriction of "Soft Money" Donations to Political Parties and Party- or Candidate-Controlled Political Committees
The law should prohibit unregulated funds—so-called "soft money"—that flow, in ever greater amounts, to political parties and party- and candidate-controlled political committees. Soft money from these sources reflects only the breadth of the contributors' financial resources. Because strong political parties are essential to a vibrant democracy, however, they should be able to raise from individual donors and PACs the sums they need to function effectively, subject to aggregate limits to ensure the effectiveness of a public financing system.
- Public Disclosure for Independent "Soft Money" Political Committees
Independent "soft money" political committees established under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code should be subject to strong registration and reporting requirements, such as those federal law already imposes on "hard money" political committees. These committees should be required to identify their sponsorship of broadcast and other public communications and contemporaneously identify their principal contributors. Consistent with First Amendment principles, the law should also require effective disclosure of the sponsorship and principal funding sources of other groups' "soft money" political communications.
-
Free Candidate Access to Means of Communications
Although the Internet is an increasingly influential medium, traditional media and mail remain vital means of communications, particularly for working and middle- class Americans. Substantial free television and radio time, and reduced postage rates, should be available to candidates in order to control campaign costs and enhance robust and wide debate about the people's business.
-
Protection of Issue Advocacy
Political campaigns are essentially about ideas and policy choices, and the First Amendment protects the right to engage freely in public issue advocacy. Legal restraints on speech under the guise of campaign finance reform are unwise, potentially unconstitutional, and should be resisted.
-
Enabling Citizens to Vote More Easily
Voting is a fundamental right and obligation of citizenship, but its exercise is subject to unnecessary impediments. In order to make it easier for workers and all citizens to vote in public elections, registration should be simple and permitted at any time, including on the day of the election, and voting times should be expanded by such means as 24-hour voting periods, weekend voting and making Election Day a holiday.
Opportunistic opponents of working families seek to place the mantle of campaign finance reform on schemes to silence workers and their unions in the legislative and political arenas in order to give corporate and other special interests a free rein. To this end, they propose deceptively named "paycheck protection" measures. These would burden working families and their unions with disruptive and inappropriate rules constraining the ability of unions to communicate with their members about issues important to them.
Its purveyors claim that "paycheck protection" is necessary to give union members a "choice" about how their money is spent. But the truth is, no worker can be forced to fund a union's political and legislative activities, and workers freely decide whether to join a union. Union members elect their own leaders, vote on their own dues and determine together how to use the union's resources. "Paycheck protection" would undermine union democracy and erode the principle of majority rule. That no other voluntary organization would be subject to these restraints exposes the unfairness and cynicism of its advocates. "Paycheck protection" has no legitimate place in any genuine campaign finance reform proposal.
The AFL-CIO calls upon the Congress to act decisively and soon to reform our electoral system in accordance with these principles.