Billionaires and Stealth Politics
Page 22
persuasive new legal arguments or by working for the appointment of new
justices. But even without a change in constitutional doctrine, a great deal could be accomplished by creating an entirely voluntary system, in which political candidates were offered substantial amounts of public money
to pay their campaign expenses, in return for a pledge to accept no pri-
vate contributions at all. (Or no private contributions larger than some
modest, specified amount.) If the public money were allocated through
equal- sized “democracy vouchers” that each citizen could pass on to her
or his favored candidates, the political power of large fortunes would be significantly reduced and political equality would be increased.13 Obviously, other policies might be devised to have a similar effect. The point is that there exists a range of options for increasing the financial voice of nonbillionaire citizens in politics without imposing direct and potentially unconstitutional limits on the political speech or action of billionaires.14
In order to fully replace money power with power exercised in equal
amounts by each citizen, however, it would probably also be necessary to
increase the representativeness of who votes in elections. US elections notoriously overrepresent older, whiter, and (especially) more- affluent and educated people, who tend to have different needs and different policy
preferences from the underrepresented young people, minorities, and
working- class or poor people.15 Many proposed remedies are familiar:
automatic, universal voter registration; election- day holidays; easily accessible polling places; and plenty of voting machines (with paper trails to make sure that vote tallies are accurate).
Further measures to empower ordinary voters and reduce any dispro-
portionate power exercised by billionaires might include shifting primary elections away from obscure times that reduce turnout (low turnout helps
donors and activists with extreme views to dominate the outcomes) and/
or reducing the number of one- party districts so that the donors and activists cannot so easily get unpopular nominees elected.
A really thoroughgoing effort to erase money power and create equal
representation, however, would probably also have to deal with certain
structural features of our political system that (so long as private money plays any part in American politics) tend to bias outcomes in ways that
benefit the wealthy.16 Those features include the undemocratic apportion-
ment of the US Senate (two senators for each state, no matter how sparsely populated), which allows floods of outside money to tip the election of senators in small states. Also the rules and procedures (especially the “hold”
and the filibuster) that empower a single senator— conceivably working on
what is to be done about billionaires?
141
behalf of just one very wealthy constituent17— to block actions favored by large majorities of Americans. And one- party domination of the House of
Representatives, so that the minority party— even if it represents a very large minority of Americans— can be altogether ignored.18 It might also
be necessary to tackle the dependence of our political parties on private money and ideologically extreme activists— which can make entire parties
unrepresentative even of their own voters. To deal with some of these matters would require major political efforts— perhaps a social movement.19
It is not the purpose of this book, however, to engage in a full discussion of far- reaching democratic political reforms. Instead, we want to focus on narrower and easier- to- achieve reforms concerning the political accountability of billionaires, a matter which is directly related to our empirical findings. Even if the money- drenched US political system were to continue in pretty much its current form, we believe that democracy could be significantly enhanced, and the making of public policy improved, by making it
harder for billionaires to take their political actions in secret.
Get the Stealthiness out of Politics
In principle, at least, it should be relatively easy— without infringing seriously on billionaires’ freedoms— to bring many currently stealthy political actions by billionaires into the sunlight for all to see and debate.
Rights to free speech— including anonymous speech— must be taken
seriously. Back in the days of legally enforced racial segregation in the South, the Supreme Court ruled that it would violate the US Constitution
for the state of Alabama to force the NAACP to reveal its membership
list.20 Anonymity is especially important for embattled minorities like civil rights workers in the old South, whose well- being (and even lives) were
often at risk. Billionaires are less likely to be vulnerable to violent repression if they express unpopular views or join unpopular organizations. Still, billionaires’ rights should be protected, too.
We believe, however, that spending large sums of money to influence
politics is significantly different from simply voicing political views or joining a political group. Being able to speak and associate freely is the life-blood of democracy. Pouring money into politics, on the other hand, has
the potential to crowd out other people’s speech and association rights,
while also (if it affects policy making) perhaps negatively affecting the well- being of millions of people. Even today’s Supreme Court, which has
tended to conflate money with speech,21 has not indicated that regulations
142
chapter six
requiring the disclosure of financial contributions— as opposed to legal limitations on their size— would violate the First Amendment.
One idea would be to require that any political activity involving more
than a certain amount of money (perhaps $1,000, maybe $10,000) must be
reported to the FEC or to some other official body, and that that information must be made easily accessible to the public.
We would not expect ordinary citizens to spend hours poring over FEC
records. But if the information were compiled in a well- organized elec-
tronic database, we could count on specialists like those at the Center for Responsive Politics or the Center for Public Integrity to issue clear, pithy reports that would alert the citizenry to what is going on. Full disclosure would likely lead to compelling sound bites on TV and the web that could
reach nearly all citizens, even those least attuned to politics.
We believe that disclosure requirements should definitely apply to any
large financial contribution to— or money spent on behalf of— a politi-
cal party or a candidate for public office. It should include money that
is claimed to be “independent” of the favored campaign. No more dark
money in elections.
It is harder to be sure what to do about big financial contributions to political causes or organizations not directly involved in elections. What— if anything— should be done about large sums of money spent on the unregistered lobbying of public officials? Or big money that funds think tanks?
Or money spent to own or subsidize media outlets, which may or may not
spread slanted “news” and commentary? Such activities, too, are often un-
accountable to the citizenry as a whole. They, too, probably contribute to political inequality, by disproportionately affecting public policy and shaping public discourse. They may possibly produce harmful public policies
or lead citizens astray in their political thinking. Some critics may argue that these forms of political spending, too, should be subjected to disclosure requirements.
But such activities are arguably less clearly entangled with a broad
public interest in disclosure. They may come closer to the sorts of poli
tical expression that deserve strict legal protection. We leave it to experts and the citizenry to sort through the legal, moral, and technical considerations involved in deciding precisely how broad or narrow disclosure requirements should be.
When it comes to political parties, candidates, and elections, however,
we believe that the case for disclosure is compelling.
what is to be done about billionaires?
143
Full disclosure would clearly increase the political accountability of
billionaires. Voters would get a much better chance to find out what the
billionaires are doing, and a better shot (if troubled by their actions) at organizing against them. Politically engaged billionaires might feel pressed to explain themselves: to start speaking out about what kinds of public
policies they have been working for and why.
It is even possible that full disclosure of billionaires’ political activities might have some effect on the broader issues of political inequality and
the political power of wealth. If their actions were made publicly visible, some billionaires’ fears of angry reactions from their customers or investors might deter them from working to enact policies opposed by large majorities of Americans. Full disclosure might make wealthy people at least think twice before working to cut Social Security benefits, to dismantle Americans’ health insurance coverage, to cut taxes on the highest incomes, or to impose governmental austerity on millions of unhappy citizens.
Even if disclosure did not greatly change billionaires’ political aims
or efforts, however, it would probably increase their propensity to argue their case publicly— a meaningful gain for democracy in its own right.
And disclosure would give ordinary citizens a much better chance to hold
billionaires accountable for their political actions.
Appendixes
appendix i Comparison between 2013 and 2016 Forbes Lists 2013
2013 Wealth
2016
2016 Wealth
Change/
Position
(in $Billions)
Position
(in $Billions)
Notes
Bill Gates
1
72
1
81
—
Warren Buffett
2
58.5
3
65.5
– 1
Larry Ellison
3
41
5
49.3
– 2
Charles Koch
4
36
7
42
– 3
David Koch
4
36
7
42
– 3
Christy Walton
6
35.4
87
5.6
Previous wealth
miscalculated,
based on incorrect
assumption that
late hus band left
her his entire
estate
Jim Walton
7
33.8
11
35.6
– 4
Alice Walton
8
33.5
13
35.4
– 5
S. Robson Walton
9
33.3
12
35.5
– 3
Michael Bloomberg
10
31
6
45
+4
Sheldon Adelson
11
28.5
14
31.8
– 3
Jeff Bezos
12
27.2
2
67
+10
Larry Page
13
24.9
9
38.5
+4
Sergey Brin
14
24.4
10
37.5
+4
Forrest Mars Jr.
15
20.5
N/A
N/A
Passed away in
July 2016
Jacqueline Mars
15
20.5
16
27
– 1
John Mars
15
20.5
16
27
– 1
Carl Icahn
18
20.3
26
15.7
– 8
George Soros
19
20
19
24.9
—
Mark Zuckerberg
20
19
4
55.5
+16
Steve Ballmer
21
18
15
27.5
+6
Leonard Blavatnik
22
17.8
22
18.2
—
Abigail Johnson
23
17.2
29
13.2
– 6
Phil Knight
24
16.3
18
25.5
+6
Michael Dell
25
15.9
20
20
+5
continues
appendix i ( continued )
2013
2013 Wealth
2016
2016 Wealth
Change/
Position
(in $Billions)
Position
(in $Billions)
Notes
Paul Allen
26
15.8
21
18.9
+5
Ronald Perelman
27
14
33
12.2
– 6
Donald Bren
27
14
27
15.2
—
Anne Cox
29
13.5
N/A
N/A
Distributed her
Chambers
stake in family
business to her
children
Rupert Murdoch
30
13.4
38
11.1
– 8
Ray Dalio
31
12.9
25
15.9
+6
Charles Ergen
32
12.5
28
14.7
+4
Harold Hamm
33
12.4
30
13.1
+3
James Simons
34
12
24
16.5
+10
Laurene
35
11.7
23
17.7
+12
Powell Jobs
Jack Taylor
36
10.4
N/A
N/A
Passed away in
July 2016
John Paulson
36
10.4
52
8.6
– 16
Philip Anschutz
38
10.3
39
10.8
– 1
Richard Kinder
39
10.2
69
7
– 30
Harold Simmons
40
10
N/A
N/A
Passed away in
December 2013
George Kaiser
40
10
61
7.2
– 21
Andrew Beal
42
9.8
49
8.9
– 7
Steve Cohen
43
9.4
31
13
+12
Edward Johnson III
44
9.3
68
7.1
– 24
Patrick Soon-
45
9
47
9.2
– 2
Shiong
Samuel
46
8.9
42
10.5
+4
Newhouse Jr.
Charles Butt
47
8.5
N/A
N/A
Distributed
ownership
in business
throughout
family
Pierre Omidyar
47
8.5
54
8.1
– 7
Eric Schmidt
49
8.3
36
11.3
+13
Elaine Marshall
49
8.3
N/A
N/A
Reason for
drop from list
is unclear
Hank & Doug
49
8.3
70
6.9
– 21
Meijer
Donald Newhouse
52
8.2
42
10.5
+10
David Tepper
53
7.9
35
11.4
+18
Stephen
54
7.7
45
10.3
+9
Schwarzman
Ralph Lauren
54
7.7
83
5.9
– 29
Leonard Lauder
56
7.6
48
9
+8
John Menard Jr.
57
7.5
46
9.4
+11
James Goodnight
58
7.2
51
8.7
+7
Eli Broad
59
6.9
58
7.4
+1
Richard DeVos
60
6.8
88
5.4
– 28
appendix i ( continued )
2013
2013 Wealth
2016
2016 Wealth
Change/
Position
(in $Billions)
Position
(in $Billions)
Notes
Jim Kennedy
61
6.7
39
10.8
+22
Blair Parry- Okeden
61