Column: Jennifer Vogt-Erickson, My Point of View

How is democracy faring? In some ways, not badly. The old year that passed saw popular uprisings against many dictators across the Arab world and the budding of the Occupy Wall Street movement here at home. The Republican candidates for presidents held a long series of public debates. While Congress seemed unable to compromise in good faith, the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War last year reminds us that despite how rocky things look at present, we are not near the brink of breaking apart.

Not all is well for democracy though. Voting rights (fewer) and money (much more) should give us pause to consider in what direction we’re heading.

The story of the last century was expanding voting rights in the country. The U.S. gave women the right to vote, granted citizenship to Native Americans, passed the watershed Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and reduced the legal voting age from 21 to 18. The story this past year, however, was of widespread efforts to restrict these rights.

At least 14 states passed legislation that will make it more difficult for an estimated 5 million legal voters to cast their ballots in the election of 2012. The main people affected will be the elderly, disabled, poor and college students. The new laws include requiring a government-issued photo ID, ending same-day registration and placing limits on early voting.

The stated purpose of the legislation is to reduce voter fraud, but the evidence of actual problems is minuscule. Out of 300 million votes cast between 2002 and 2007, there were only 86 people convicted of voter fraud at the federal level, and many of them just didn’t realize they were ineligible to vote. Wisconsin, which passed some of the toughest restrictions in 2011, found enough evidence to prosecute only seven voters out of three million votes cast at the local level after the 2004 election. All were ex-felons who were ineligible to vote.

I’m all for prosecuting fraud, but does it make sense to make it harder for five million people to vote in order to curtail this trifling level of voter fraud? What are the odds that the legislatures will apply the same logic to the fact that two-thirds of homicides are committed with firearms, and thus pass legislation to restrict gun ownership? Probably about seven in three million. (Don’t worry, Dad, I’m not arguing for gun control here.)

It does make sense, though, if the real purpose is to suppress votes for Democrats. It’s easy to make the case for this. The legislatures that passed the restrictions are controlled by Republicans, and the people who will be most adversely affected by them lean solidly toward voting for Democrats. But my main point is not that these laws are anti-Democrat, but rather that these laws are anti-democratic. They’re on the wrong side of history, and hopefully our judicial branch will strike them all down.

Another peril for democracy is that campaigns are more expensive than ever. The presidential campaigns may cost as much as $6 billion in 2012. In 2008, the average House seat winner spent $1.4 million, and the average Senate seat winner spent $8.5 million. The upshot is that our national lawmakers tend to be much wealthier than the people they serve, because many of them use substantial amounts of their own funds to run, and they are also more beholden to large campaign donors. If you wonder why Wall Street got sweet bailout deals with no strings after the 2008 financial collapse, look no further than its generous support of incumbents. And to further water down democracy, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 determined that money has an unlimited right to free speech. Millions of dollars are being funneled to candidates without the public knowing where it comes from.

Democracy should not be for sale or limited to those with means. Minnesota is one of the easiest states in which to vote and has one of the highest voter turnout rates, and it used to far exceed the nation in small donations to state candidates.

The Political Contribution Refund, which former Gov. Tim Pawlenty suspended in the summer of 2009 to close a budget hole, made a big impact on our state politics. People making modest contributions of $150 or less ($50 of which was eligible for the refund) provided 47 percent of campaign donations in 2009. The PCR also helped fund both the Republican and DFL state parties. The Republican Party benefited from it by a 3-to-1 margin over the DFL Party, and its absence is the main reason for the Republicans’ financial woes.

The PCR could be revived by as early as 2013, and it should. At a cost of less than $12 million, it gives people of modest means a much larger role in politics. It’s a small fix that worthily serves a priceless goal.

 

Jennifer Vogt-Erickson is a member of the Freeborn County DFL Party.