A campaign that makes the political turmoil of 1968 look good

[bemildred]

3. Citizens United is only 15% of the political cash problem

Campaign finance is arguably the breakout issue of this election year. Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both rail constantly against Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that opened up election spending to corporations and super PACs. On the GOP side, candidates' super PACs have garnered as much news media scrutiny as the candidates themselves.

This might seem like music to the ears of those who worry about how money dominates politics. But Citizens United is only the harmony, not the melody of that tune. The much greater threat to America's hallowed system of self-government remains the day-to-day routine of “hard money” fundraising.

Hard money refers to contributions given directly to a candidate's campaign, not to “outside” political groups such as super PACs. Even with a cap on these contributions of $2,700 per individual, such donations constitute the bulk of political spending. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of the $3.7 billion spent in the 2014 congressional midterms, super PACs, nonprofits and other outside spenders made up around $560 million, or roughly 15%. In contrast, $1.5 billion, or 42%, was spent by candidates themselves, with the rest left to party committees.

Two other inside-the-Beltway terms — call time and the cash committee — illustrate why hard money is the core problem.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-penniman-potter-political-campaign-finance-reform-20160308-story.html#nt=barker&bn=Barker%2006%20-%20In%20Case%20You%20Missed%20It