Yes, I write this assuming that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Many Democrats (obviously) agree that it would be good if the Democratic party was unified heading into this crucial general election. And many Democrats (myself included) also believe that (i) including some of Mr. Sanders’ policy positions would make Ms. Clinton a stronger candidate, and (ii) some of Mr. Sanders’ positions should be included in the Clinton campaign simply because they are superior policy positions. It is well nigh impossible for either candidate to get everything right or optimal.
So, some level of policy coordination between the nominee and the Sanders camp is both beneficial and/or necessary. I also think that the nominee, the primary winner, is rightfully in the driver’s seat on her own campaign, and at this point the runner up candidate would do best to prioritize those things that he most wants to influence. Agreed?
All of that is an intro to my proposal: the most important issue for Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders to reach some basic common ground is campaign finance reform. Why? Three reasons:
First, this is not just Sanders’ signature issue. If you listen closely, most of his proposals — single-payer health insurance, free public college education, increased labor power — is premised (by him) on first cleaning up our campaign finance system that allows wealthy “voices” (i.e., money) to not only drown out progressive voices but, more importantly, to structurally control the government itself. Campaign finance reform is both the essence of Mr. Sanders’ “revolution,” and the condition precedent for the more concrete benefits of such revolution.
Second, while there is no need for Clinton supporters to concede that HRC is against campaign finance reform, I think we can all say that, on the Democratic side, the Clintons are the least associated with the campaign finance reform movement. Now, I’ll say that I don’t agree to “unilateral disarmament” as some example before the law is changed, and I suspect that is Ms. Clinton’s genuine position. She doesn’t need to disarm in this GE cycle. But let’s also be honest that she needs help on a credible, specific campaign finance reform platform that she can run on. Mr. Sanders’ imprimatur would certainly help here.
Third, this is one of the most important policy issues affecting the country, across a range of issues, and it is important to get it right. (Call that an “added benefit”)
OK, but to be constructive, we have to be more specific. What are the differences between the candidates and how can they meaningfully unite to bring together their supporters? These are open questions, and I invite everyone interested to weigh in on the comments. I only give my further thoughts below.
I looked up a Sanders’ policy position — Get Big Money Out of Politics and Restore Democracy — and excerpt some below:
Real campaign finance reform must happen as soon as possible. That is why we must overturn, through a constitutional amendment, the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as the Buckley v. Valeo decision. That is why we need to pass legislation to require wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. More importantly, it is why we need to move toward the public funding of elections.
More specifically. Mr. Sanders promises:
AS PRESIDENT, I WILL:
- Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
- Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
- Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
- Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
- Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
- Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.
For her part:
Hillary will:
-
Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.
-
End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she'll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.
-
Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters.
To me, these broad based policy announcements are not overly helpful, but — per their public perceptions — it seems that Mr. Sanders is more committed and specific on campaign finance reform issues. Still, I am worried that the overwhelming bulk of campaign finance reform efforts depend on two longer term, uncertain efforts — a Constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court overturning Citizens United and its ilk — which both candidates agree on. But, other than that, it does seem like the grounds and ideas for movement and compromise is supplied more by the Sanders camp (to his and their credit).
On that score, I also found this helpful, longer web page on Mr. Sanders’ campaign finance reform positions. It seems to me that the following Sanders positions and proposed bills provide the roadmap to a thoughtful, possible “unity” compromise. Where does Ms. Clinton stand on:
DISCLOSE Act: Bernie wants to enact legislation to protect the integrity and transparency of federal elections by establishing disclosure requirements for all contributions.
Public Funding of Elections: Bernie wants to move towards public funding of elections to promote a more even playing field where all Americans can participate.
Democracy Day: Bernie wants to celebrate democracy by creating a holiday to encourage voter turnout for elections.
Gerrymandering & Voter Suppression: Bernie wants to curb redistricting as well as reinforce the Voting Rights Acts by making it easy for anyone to cast a vote, including former felons who have served their time.
The Two-Party System: Bernie Sanders believes that many Americans have “rejected the two party system” and is one of the US Senate’s only two Independent members. He has supported legislation to introduce Instant Runoff Voting in order to give third parties a fair shot at competing in our elections.
(OK, I know where Clinton stands on weakening Democrats and the two-party system . . .)
I would think that the above are the specifics on what should be the most important unity compromise between Sanders and Clinton. Which bills or broad concepts can Ms. Clinton openly endorse and add to her campaign? Neither person will get everything, but where can they each move, agree and prioritize?
I’d love to hear concrete thoughts from others below, particularly those who know the weeds of these issues.
One personal note: of course anyone should feel free to argue anything, but I don't think a broad-based argument that no candidate should take PAC or corporate money works for these purposes. I think the real benefit comes from being more specific. But more importantly, I don't think we should accept a notion of campaign finance reform that is based on voluntary, individual candidate decisions — which can be embraced, dropped, or ignored at random. I also seriously doubt that Mr. Sanders — facing a $1 billion presidential election — would disavow big union, environmental or human rights contributions or associated PACs if he was the GE nominee, and I am not sure if I could forgive him if he did.
I do believe though that we need a platform of legal changes that will apply to all candidates, and that we can run on. (But, hey, let me know otherwise . . .)