Changing the way things are done in Washington means sending leaders who look more like America.
However, Millionaire Jack Davis obviously doesn't think so. You see, today, his lawsuit claiming that section 319 of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law (the "Millionaire's Amendment") is unconstitutional will be heard by the Supreme Court.
The point of this suit is to make it easier for the very wealthy to buy seats in Congress and deny regular people a place at the table.
The fact that Jack Davis is taking this suit to the Supreme Court speaks volumes about his attitude toward elections. Jack thinks this is about him and his money not about people and the challenges they face.
His view about campaigns, money, free speech, and fair play speaks loud and clear: when it comes to representing hard working Americans, only millionaires need apply for the job.
We need leaders who are finding constructive ways to help Western New Yorkers deal with the high price of gas, health care and college tuition, not someone who spends millions to rig the system.
Jack Davis and I are both running for Congress from NY-26 in the Democratic Primary, but our ideas about people powered politics couldn't be more different. Here is an example of my idea of people powered politics.
Yesterday, The New York Times published an editorial about the case and, by implication, Davis' concept of electoral free speech:
Jack Davis, a wealthy businessman who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in upstate New York in 2006, is challenging the amendment.
~snip~
Mr. Davis — who filed papers saying he intended to spend $1 million in personal money on his campaign — argues that the millionaires’ amendment violated his First Amendment and equal protection rights. He claims that it "chilled," or discouraged, his speech, and that it deters wealthy people from running for office or spending their own money on their campaigns.
The Times got it right. Davis' claims couldn't be more absurd. The idea that allowing others to raise money so that elected office is not a millionaire men's club, "'chilled,' or discouraged, his speech, and that it deters wealthy people from running for office or spending their own money on their campaigns," is so counter to logic that one must question Davis' real motives.
Could it be that he feels his money should guarantee his election without having to appeal to the people in his district and actually do the hard work of campaigning? In his past two losing elections, Davis had little desire to travel his district and listen to the people he was running to represent. He had one issue and a fat checkbook...and it wasn't enough....twice.
So now, instead of changing the way he campaigns, he wants to change the rules. The New York Times thinks Jack's rule changes are wrong for America:
These (Davis') claims are baseless. As the three-judge court that initially heard the case noted, the millionaires’ amendment does not deprive anyone of free-speech rights or the ability to spend money to run for office. Mr. Davis was able to spend as much of his own fortune as he wanted. The amendment simply adds to the total amount of speech by making it easier for less-wealthy candidates to be heard.
There is also no sign that the amendment is discouraging the wealthy from running or spending. The very rich are represented in Congress in large numbers. Contrary to Mr. Davis’s claims of "chilling," the number of candidates who spent more than $1 million of their own money actually increased after the amendment took effect. It is now common for party recruiters to seek out "self-financing" — or wealthy — candidates.
In proof of their point, The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that 44% of the members in the House of Representatives and 58% of the members in the Senate are millionaires while only 1% of adult Americans have a net worth of $1 million.
It is time that we change the way things are done in Washington and start sending leaders who look more like America.
We agree with the Times' conclusion:
Even with the millionaires’ amendment’s correctives, wealthy candidates like Mr. Davis remain in a privileged position. They certainly don’t need any extra help.
Millionaires like Jack Davis don’t need help. Single moms, retirees, veterans and working families all struggling to make ends meet, do. And that starts with having a voice in Congress who spends their time fixing problems, instead of trying to put the financial fix in for their political campaigns.
Powers for Congress. You have the power to change Washington.