If she really thinks money is corrupting politics, she can take concrete steps right now. She could pledge to return immediately to the public finance system and call on pro-Clinton super PACs to cease and desist — if her Republican opponents will do the same. The Republicans won’t, of course, but then Clinton would have gained the moral high ground she now lacks.
She could also vow to enact four pieces of legislation if elected: Reviving the public finance system with matching funds for small contributions; curtailing candidate super PACs by drafting strict rules prohibiting coordination; forcing the disclosure of anonymous “dark money” contributions; and creating a new enforcement agency to replace the impotent and perpetually deadlocked Federal Election Commission.
“We have a history of candidates making commitments to campaign finance reform during the campaign and then walking away from it, in particular with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama,” says Fred Wertheimer, a longtime campaign-finance reformer. “We’re going to need a lot more than what Mrs. Clinton has said in order for this to be treated seriously.”
Dubious record
There’s a chance she’ll find some Republican support for legislation to restore public financing of elections — if only because the absence of such a system effectively means presidents are elected to eight-year terms, because their ability to raise virtually unlimited sums as incumbents all but guarantees re-election.
If she’s serious in her commitment to reform, Clinton doesn’t have to wait until the election. She could challenge her opponents to join her in opting into the moribund public finance system (though its matching funds would be absurdly low). To keep the super PACs from filling the void, she could propose that both sides disavow them, as Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren did in their 2012 Massachusetts Senate race, pledging to pay a penalty if outside groups ran ads in their race.
Such an arrangement is probably unworkable, even if Republicans took her up on it. But this and other tangible steps could reduce the demoralizing gap between Clinton’s professed commitment to clean elections and her dubious record.