Make no mistake — Initiative 735 on the November ballot will not alter the U.S. Constitution or reform campaign financing or, really, do much of anything for now. Well, except to make those who decry the nation’s election system feel a little bit better, and there is some value to be found in that.
Before we delve into the details, we should mention that The Columbian’s Editorial Board recommends a “yes” vote on I-735, which would urge Washington’s congressional delegation to propose a constitutional amendment to define constitutional rights as belonging only to individuals and not to corporations.
As always, we are merely, er, um, urging voters to support I-735, which should carry about as much weight as urging congressional members to do something. We trust the ability of voters to examine the proposal before casting an informed ballot.
While the power behind Initiative 735 is negligible, the idea is worthy of consideration. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission that freedom of speech means the government may not restrict political expenditures by nonprofit groups. Essentially, it ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, a situation that has contributed to the rise of super PACs and “dark money” as agents of political influence. Under the Citizens United ruling, organizations or unions may work to influence elections without disclosing the source of their financing.
As Matthew Streib, spokesman for the Washington Coalition to Amend the Constitution, told the Associated Press: “The more money you have, the more speech you have. We want fair and equal elections enshrined in the Constitution. … We want an amendment that upholds the core democratic ideal that all people are equal.”
Critics of I-735 say the idea would quash the free speech of some, and that silencing speech in any form is undemocratic. Opponent Rebecca Faust told the Associated Press: “Silencing one voice to amplify another doesn’t feel right. If we let the government decide who has free speech, we’ll have big government instead of a big corporation controlling speech.”
That would, indeed, be frightening. But deciding that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals would do no such thing. Instead, it would limit political speech to a collective of individuals. Members of unions or nonprofit organizations still could contribute to the candidate of their choice, but those contributions would be subjected to the disinfectant that is sunshine rather than wallowing in the darkness of secrecy. Such transparency would be helpful in restoring the public’s faith in the nation’s election system.
Again, I-735 would only make a recommendation to Washington’s congressional representatives. Real change will require lobbying congressional members and voting for candidates who favor campaign finance reform. Eventually, we hope, a groundswell of public opinion will lead to change that leaves room for grass-roots politics rather than having a system in which money equates speech.
Such a national groundswell requires time and effort, the kind that cannot be accomplished by a single vote in a single state (although other states have similar measures on the November ballot). But in working toward such a movement, it is instructive to remember an axiom: The longest journey begins with a single step. The Columbian urges Washington voters to take such a step by supporting Initiative 735.
