Editorial: It’s up to us to determine money’s role in politics

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton has state elections officials wondering what their next step should be to put a lid on campaign spending.

How about nothing?

Prior to a ruling that Leighton issued recently in Tacoma, a state law in Washington forbade backers or opponents of initiatives and referendums from giving more than $5,000 in the final three weeks of a campaign. That, Leighton held, violates the givers’ freedom of political speech.

This isn’t the first time that a strategy for curbing money’s influence in politics has run afoul of the First Amendment. It probably won’t be the last, given how passionate well-intentioned people are about rinsing the stain of bankroll politics out of our political fabric.

It’s a laudable purpose, but the strategy is futile, and the targets – well-heeled investors and the campaign organizations they grease – are the wrong focus. In the same opinion Leighton upheld a provision in the statute that requires disclosure of those who give more than $25 to such efforts.

Leighton’s got it right. You don’t strengthen the democratic process by restricting participation, you do it by clarifying who the participants are.

For those keeping score at home, this is all part of the litigation that flowed from Referendum 71, the 2009 ballot measure that expanded the rights of same-sex couples in Washington state. Family PAC, the political action committee that opposed the measure, is still in court trying to avoid revealing names of those who signed the referendum petition.

This is a bounty year for initiatives, six of which will appear on Washington’s general election ballot Nov. 2. More than $10 million already has been spent on the campaigns and twice that much remains in the campaign war chests. Fundraising continues.

We share the concern that deep pockets buy undue influence over the important policy decisions we render with our ballots. But silencing certain voices in a democratic process risks silencing all.

The better approach is for all of us to be discerning voters, to plug our ears to superficial bumper-sticker campaign ads but keep our eyes open to who’s paying for them. If everyone ignored the empty blather that masquerades as discourse and insisted instead on detailed, substantive explanations before forming opinions, money would lose much of its influence.

Follow news accounts, attend debates, engage friends and acquaintances (not necessarily like-minded ones) in civil conversations about issues and candidates. Sensible – repeat, sensible – use of the Internet gives thoughtful Americans better access than they’ve ever had to voting records, complete statutory language and credible analysis – things you won’t find in the 30-second attack ads all that money purchases.

The best way to diminish money’s role in political campaigns is to make it a waste.