"... the undue influence of big money in politics will continue until there is a change in the very nature of our campaign finance system and elections are publicly financed."

..................................................................................................................................
Big money has undue political influence
By Robert Brischetto, November 1, 2013

It is a sad commentary on the state of politics today that the determinant of election outcomes is no longer a candidate or party's stand on the issues, but rather who attracts “the big money.” The change in Texas from a blue state to a red state can be understood by following the money trail.

In the 1980s, all nine members of the Texas Supreme Court, which deals with civil lawsuits, were Democrats and decidedly pro-plaintiff. Almost all appellate and district judges below them were Democrats. Corporate giants in Texas saw no point in giving money to Republican candidates when the results were not protecting their bottom line.

Enter campaign consultant Karl Rove with an idea that would raise many millions of dollars to change the makeup of the Texas judiciary. He had just managed a successful 1984 U.S. Senate campaign for Phil Gramm and was handling direct mail for the Reagan-Bush campaign.

With a hands-on understanding of where the big money was, Rove went to work building a Texas money machine that would raise many millions in donations from the health care, petrochemical, tobacco and energy industries to political action committees (PACs) set up by him.

In less than a decade, all nine of the Texas Supreme Court judges were pro-business Republicans and no fewer than 44 bills were introduced in the Legislature to limit the ability of plaintiffs to sue for damages in liability suits.

Rove did not stop at the judiciary. His PACs were responsible for bankrolling Republicans in legislative races for the Texas House and Senate. He even persuaded Democratic state Rep. Rick Perry to change parties and run statewide. In 1990, Perry launched a campaign for Texas Agriculture Commissioner and defeated progressive incumbent Democrat Jim Hightower.

The same PAC money was used to elect George W. Bush as governor in his 1994 race against incumbent Ann Richards.

By 2002, Republicans had won a majority in the Legislature and all statewide offices, and were able to control redistricting for both state and federal legislative districts. Like the Democrats had done in their heyday, they could draw their own district lines around the voters who would most likely support their party's candidates.

As a result, incumbents were not challenged to reach out beyond their own base. This goes a long way to explaining how congressional representatives could take extreme positions and refuse to compromise without fear of losing their seats. The country witnessed such single-minded militancy among the anti-government tea party Republicans with the support of billionaires like the Koch brothers in the recent government shutdown.

The influence of big money in Texas politics was bolstered even further by a Supreme Court opinion in 2010 in the Citizens United case, which allowed corporations and labor unions in federal campaigns to spend unlimited amounts in support or opposition to candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates.

The high court is once again deliberating on the issue of regulating money in politics. The McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case contests federal laws that restrict the total or “aggregate” amount an individual can donate to federal candidates and parties. Currently there are no limits on contributions by PACs or political party committees. Individuals, however, have a $123,200 ceiling on contributions to candidates, PACs and parties combined every two years. If aggregate limits are eliminated, rich contributors will be allowed to funnel as much money to as many favored candidates they choose.

Regardless of the outcome in McCutcheon, the undue influence of big money in politics will continue until there is a change in the very nature of our campaign finance system and elections are publicly financed. And polarization of party politics will continue in Texas until redistricting is removed from the control of the majority party and replaced with an independent commission.
..................................................................................................................................