Democracy at risk: A small donor speaks out

Had a long discussion with my older son yesterday, who is fast becoming an expert on political campaign processes and procedures. As has happened often in our discussions, the topic moved quickly into the realm of money in politics; the effects, the ethics, and the long-term ramifications to our system of governing. When he questioned my position that large (yet legal) campaign contributions violated the 1st Amendment rights of scores of citizens, my answer was something I've mentioned here before:

For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Anybody reading this who has researched the campaign contributions to a candidate or PAC has noticed a string of small contributions heading the list that don't tell you who that person was. They are nameless. You are nameless. Not only does the BOE consider the identification of such unnecessary, nobody else cares, either. Especially not the entity to which you're donating.

Consider the following simple math: If you write a check to a candidate or PAC for $40, it will take you and 99 other $40 check writers to equal the influence of one $4,000 contributor. Or in the case of the family-bundling Art Pope:

Pope family members frequently bundle their campaign contributions together, beginning the practice when Art’s father (John W. Pope, now deceased) was a prominent Republican donor. In the landmark 2010 election, Art provided NC General Assembly candidates with bundled contributions (totaling up to $16,000 per candidate) from himself, his wife, his mother, and his sister; 21 GOP legislative candidates received a total of $252,000 from these bundles in 2010.

It will take four hundred of you to equal the influence of his "family" checkbook.

Granted, we've seen some pretty amazing accomplishments from the grassroots/netroots when the planets line up and the tides cooperate. But you simply can't overcome the math, on anything resembling a regular basis.

I've seen many folks demonstrate their outrage to the Citizens United decision, and it's definitely outrage-worthy. But it's also merely an (inevitable?) symptomatic extension of an already sick process.

The problem is, way too many people (on both sides of the aisle) don't realize the enormity of this ailment. We clap with glee when our favorite candidate breaks fundraising records, never once considering that we are reveling in our own demise as a representative Republic.

As the pricetag for a successful campaign soars higher and higher, the individual voices of small donors become quieter and quieter, until one day those voices won't be heard at all. And that, my friends, is when the 1st Amendment will become completely irrelevant.