Taxation without Representation
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
March 13, 2000
Thank you very much.
Friends, we are approaching an important day in the annual cycle of our great Republic, and many of us are preparing for it. I am not speaking of July 4th, the day of our independence, but April 15, the day of our interdependence --of shared commitment to each other to make this thing work.
We aren't crazy about paying taxes, especially if we think we think we are being asked to pay unfairly. What we dislike most --and this goes way back to a moment on the docks of Boston Harbor-- is to be taxed as a full player when we are not being fairly represented in the decisions of supposedly equal people.
Taxation without representation is a term often used to decry high taxation, but I would like to invoke it today to emphasize the other side of the equation: under representation.
We taxpayers find ourselves shouldering the burdens of the nation while wealthy special interests are able to avoid paying taxes, shifting their fair share, plus many of the costs of their own businesses, such as environmental cleanup, onto working people. This goes quite beyond taxation without representation, for the problem is not so much that our interests are being neglected, but that our interests are being squarely attacked and damaged while we subsidize our attackers. It is un-American in all its aspects.
The dark heart of this treachery is the current campaign finance system, where special interests simply buy public policies aimed against us with their campaign donations. This is not the normal condition of our political history. This is not inevitable. It is now being practiced on an open, brazen, and massive scale, and it is cancerous to the underpinnings of a fair, free, and civil society.
One way or another, of course, we publicly finance our elections. Under the present system, for every dollar that commercial interests invest in political campaigns, they receive a return in excess of ten dollars, provided by taxpayers, in the form of special tax breaks and subsidies. That clearly is a public funding system --just not a good one from the taxpayers point of view.
If we directly fund our political campaigns, on the theory that the citizens need information about the candidates, then we can save nine out of those ten tax dollars, for we will not have to provide all the tax loopholes and special benefits that commercial campaign contributors now demand from lawmakers in exchange for their donations to candidates.
It might occur to you that another approach would be to find a new class of candidates who cannot be bought. We must, however, understand that the very best of us are soon co-opted and then corrupted by the horrible expenses of political campaigning. We must stop putting good people in ethically corrosive environments until they become, like Senators Santorum and Specter, financial frankensteins who rail against reform and care only for the next grotesque donation to keep themselves alive. They do not represent their people anymore. But the people are at the gate.
We have allowed this horror to happen. We must change the story of our people to a happy one, putting our newly elected leaders --people whose deepest intentions are usually to be good public servants-- in environments that will bring our their best qualities and their highest instincts. It is up to us, you and me (for that is what we mean by democracy) to design elective systems that will bring out the best in our people. It doesn't matter if our systems are a little expensive. There is no reason why we should pay more for our roadways and our parks than for the institutions that provide us fair representation, freedom and equality.
Those are my thoughts on public funding, which I hope, if you do not agree with, you will at least think about. Now let us briefly consider soft money donations.
Friends, how would you feel if you were involved in a lawsuit and you found out that the other side was making big financial contributions to the judge just before the ruling?
How would you feel if you were a baseball player in the World Series, and you found out that the other team was making big financial contributions to the umpire?
How would you feel if you were a citizen in a free democracy and you found out that the person who was elected to represent your interests was receiving huge financial contributions from people outside your district whose interests were completely opposed to yours and those of your community?
Is there a fundamental difference between these three situations? I don't think there is. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court, on several occasions now, has agreed that reasonable limits on campaign contributions, if they help eliminate corruption or the damaging appearance of corruption in our government, are legal and proper.
Now, would it matter if the contributions to the judge were not made directly, but were instead made to the judge's family foundation and passed back to the judge?
Would it matter if the contributions to the umpire were instead made to the umpire's union, and then passed back to the umpire?
Would it matter if the political contributions were made to the elected official's party, and then passed back to the official?
Well, in the last example, those unregulated, or soft money political contributions tend to be in very high amounts --quite beyond the reasonable limits imposed on donations made directly to candidates. Even a child can see that this back door approach is wrong and unfair. And there is no reason, so long as the Supreme Court says that contribution limits are legal, why such deceptive practices should be allowed under the law.
That is the clear logic of it, and here are the feelings I carry to this issue in my heart. I have lived long enough to see a great sacrifices made by a great many people to preserve our freedoms as a nation of equal citizens. People who try with their wealth to steal our representatives from us are attempting to steal our freedom. For this we have gone to war and have sacrificed the lives of our children. Do they think we will permit it now for some reason? We will not.
Maintaining our freedom is constant work, and it is our business here today. Some, like Senators Santorum and Specter, will stand in our way. But they stand against our history as an equal and free people, and they stand against the tide of this reform.
I speak against soft money. For those who are still confused by the term, let me be more clear: I speak against corruption, unfair advantage, and I speak against those greedy interests who would steal away or government, our freedoms, and our equality.
In this reform battle, you and I fight for the position of the individual, for ourselves, for our friends, family and neighbors, and we fight so that those who gave their lives to the defense of our equality and freedom may not have done so in vain.
I support the important work you are doing here. You are patriots to the cause of the American experiment in self-government. You are working on the representation side of our dear old slogan from Boston Harbor, and I hope your fellow citizens will join you on the docks. For there is still a great deal of unfair tea to be thrown overboard--along with a few Senators-- and the more citizens who come out to help, the sooner we can all get back to the business of having real citizen representation in our elective bodies, and a real democratic republic in exchange for the high price we each must pay for it at tax time --and when duty calls us to defend this free and equal nation with our lives and the lives of those whom we love.
Thank you.
Aftermath (news clipping):
Associated Press 3/16/2000
HEADLINE: 'Granny D' called in to help revive reform proposal
BYLINE: GEORGE STRAWLEY
DATELINE: HARRISBURG, PA. Pennsylvania supporters of campaign-finance reform brought in a 90-year-old great-grandmother from New Hampshire to press the Legislature to approve a struggling proposal for public financing of gubernatorial campaigns.
Doris Haddock, a longtime activist nicknamed "Granny D" who trekked from Los Angeles to Washington to show that everyday people were interested in changing how political campaigns are funded, put in an appearance Monday on behalf of the bill.
An on Tuesday, the House reversed an earlier vote and approved the bill to allow taxpayers to "check off" their approval of publicly funded campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor.
The bill passed 106-91 and goes to the Senate. The voluntary step would be indicated on tax returns, similar to the federal program, in which a taxpayer could designate $5 to go toward campaigns.
"People who try with their wealth to steal our representatives from us are attempting to steal our freedom," said Haddock, who flew to Harrisburg for the appearance with lawmakers.
Wearing a straw hat decorated with a turkey feather and a vest adorned with pro-reform buttons, the 5-foot Dublin, N.H., woman climbed the Capitol steps with legislators and addressed television cameras inside the building. Longtime advocate Sen. Allen G. Kukovich, D-Westmoreland, said it was the most attention he has seen given to a reform-related event in years.
The proposal approved Tuesday calls for a system of public financing, allowing candidates in races for governor and lieutenant governor, to receive $8 million in public funding if they agree to a $12 million spending limit. Contributions would be limited to $2,000 from one contributor to a candidate per election.
About half of all states have some sort of public financing for political campaigns, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They range from the basic check-off on income tax forms to ventures in at least two states that encourage candidates to swear off any private contributions.
The Pennsylvania proposal is patterned after similar rules in New Jersey, where a state spokesman said a check-off box allowing $1 to be shifted to gubernatorial campaign funding has appeared on tax returns since 1976.
House members also have approved a measure allowing Philadelphia to limit contributions and spending in its municipal races. That measure awaits action in the Senate State Government Committee.
Rep. David Levdansky, D-Allegheny, has proposed a bill to limit campaign contributions and spending, and establish a system to disclose donations and expenses. State law now does not limit contributions but does require candidates to report them.