Republic, Lost_ How Money Corrupts Congress--And a Plan to Stop It - Lawrence Lessig [119]
Threats, however, are not reported on any campaign disclosure form. In the example just given, the $2,000 contribution would be reported; the $8,000 threat would not. The $2,000 is thus the visible tip of the iceberg, while the $8,000 is the bulk, hidden from the public’s view.
This dynamic was confirmed to me by former senator Larry Pressler (R-S.D.). “By pouring money into the opponent’s coffers,” Pressler explained, “it is a signal that there could be more.” For example,
National Public Radio has a lot of financial supporters—very major wealthy people. I was also a supporter, but I thought they needed to reform some of their internal things. But whenever I would try to do something about that, all of a sudden contributions would show up in my potential opponent’s campaign. NPR is a very powerful organization. They don’t give money themselves, but they have a lot of very wealthy supporters. And somehow, miraculously, that money shows up. It is a clear signal, and the message is received.5
Chamon and Kaplan wrote in the pre–Citizens United world, where the maximum “corporate contribution” through a corporate PAC was $5,000 per cycle. The significance of their insight in a post–Citizens United world, however, is much greater. For the power of a potential threat is limited by the maximum contribution allowed. After Citizens United, limits on independent expenditures are removed. And while the threats must still be independent, there are many ways that corporate wealth can be translated into significant political influence that would never be revealed by any system of disclosure alone. Indeed, as a poll of Hill staffers in 2011 reveals, this has been precisely the effect.6
Imagine again, for example, that Bexxon let it be known that it was willing to spend up to $1 million in any congressional district to elect representatives who were skeptical of global warming science. Or imagine that Moogle let it be known that it would run up to $1 million in online ads to defeat global warming skeptics. Neither position would necessarily be “coordination” sufficient to render the expenditures non-independent: both announcements could be made well before candidates were even chosen by parties. Yet, if the iceberg theory is correct, in neither case would all the money have to be spent in order to have its intended effect. Moogle might actually spend only $1,000, and it might report that amount. But its influence would be far beyond what it reported, so long as its threat was credible.
The point is that transparency is being asked to carry too much weight in this reform fight. It is being depended upon to do too much. Not only does the “information” revealed not necessarily inform, but the most important influences in the system would not necessarily be revealed. No doubt, an efficient system will show us lots that will concern many. In this, it functions as the Webcam on the Deepwater Horizon functioned: displaying in graphic detail the sludge being dumped into the Gulf. But as with the Deepwater Horizon, the solution is not a better camera. It is a regime that stops the sludge.
That’s the commitment those dedicated to transparency must make. If the problem we face is the inevitable distortion that dependence corruption produces, we need to focus on ways to end that corruption. Seeing it more clearly, as the brilliant souls at the Sunlight Foundation and MapLight make possible, is necessary. Their work has certainly motivated many (including me), and will certainly motivate more. But if seeing it is all that we do, then it is just as likely to drive many more of us over the brink of cynicism. “You’ve shown me clearly now what I already believed. Now I’m even more certain that there’s no reason for me to be here.” But as San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk said, “You gotta give ’em hope.” A perpetual stream of political