Bought and Paid For

Who needs elections? Let's have auctions.

by Isaiah Thompson

[ rants ]

Maybe instead of getting candidates together on stage for tiresome policy debates, forcing them to answer endless questions about their positions and plans, then holding those pesky elections, we in Pennsylvania ought to just go ahead and hold a public auction — highest bidder gets to choose the governor, senator, whatever, winner take all. Pennsylvania (as we note election after election) is one of just 11 states that place no limits on individual campaign contributions. While other states enforce individual contribution limits ranging from $500 per candidate to tens of thousands of dollars, Pennsylvania allows — welcomes, you might say — donations of mind-boggling proportions.

Among the top donations collected by our gubernatorial candidates, for example, are these sparkling rubies, unearthed in a report by Common Cause Pennsylvania and the Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania: Corbett has received more than $856,000 from the natural gas industry, as it busily sets up shop in Pennsylvania. For some reason, the natural gas industry just likes to heap money upon Corbett. And for some reason, Corbett just refuses to support a tax on natural gas production, despite potential costs in infrastructure damage and environmental degradation, and despite the clear-as-daylight absurdity of industry claims that even a small tax would deter them from tapping one of the richest supplies of natural gas in the United States. In fact, the only people in Pennsylvania who actually seem to believe that could happen are the gas drillers themselves — and the politicians they heap money upon.

Not that Dan Onorato has exactly been turning over tables at the temple of democracy: He, too, has received substantial money from the gas industry — though only about $124,000. He favors a tax on gas production. And that's just one powerful special-interest group here. The gambling industry is another cash cow for state pols: Since 2001, the gaming industry has donated at least $4.4 million. Ten casinos later, things seem to have turned out well for them.

Overall, Corbett has raised more than $6 million, and Onorato has trailed with an oh-so-humble $3.5 million.

Meanwhile, in federal elections, the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission ruling allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts on election ads was an invitation to a giant orgy of untraceable political activities, and Pennsylvania seems to be this year's love shack: According to The Washington Post, interest groups and political parties have spent more than $17 million on the Pennsylvania Senate race — $9.8 million supporting Republican Pat Toomey, and $7.9 million supporting Democrat Joe Sestak.

Backing Toomey are such opaque sources as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($1.7 million) and Club for Growth ($2.1 million). Not a member? Well, Toomey was its president from 2005 to 2009, and reorganized the Club as a 501(c)(4) corporation so it could donate huge sums culled from anonymous donors to politicians — like, for example, him. Sestak has received less aid from third-party groups, but plenty nonetheless. The National Education Association has chipped in $500,000; VoteVets.org has spent $462,000.

What does this mean for you, dear readers, who (we'll assume) don't have $10,000 checks at your disposal? It means that whatever political donation you can afford is worth less and less all the time.

And while the Citizens United decision means that federal elections will probably remains a free-for-all for the foreseeable future, Pennsylvania could limit the pernicious influence of special interests, powerful PACs and anonymous money factories on state races with the simple stroke of a pen.

"If you get people off the record, they'll tell you that money plays a role in everything that happens in Harrisburg. What it certainly does is get you on the agenda," says Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, which has supported efforts to limit statewide donations. "Thirty-nine other states have figured it out."

And indeed, Senate Bill 1269, which would limit contributions, has some bi­partisan support. However, it's been stalled in the State Government Committee since March, and that committee's chair, Sen. Charles T. McIlhinney (R-10th District), doesn't seem in a hurry to move it along.

In the meantime, while giant corporations and private slush funds can spend, they can't vote. You can.

(isaiah.thompson@citypaper.net)