On Senator Brownsberger and Campaign Finance

After Senator Edward J. Markey’s swearing in as the junior senator from Massachusetts, prospective candidates began jockeying to represent his old district in the House of Representatives. That district—the Massachusetts Fifth—includes Harvard and Cambridge, and stands among the most consistently Democratic districts in the country. It is therefore very likely that whoever wins the October 15 Democratic primary will become the district’s next Congressperson. In a race among largely progressive Democrats, one issue has come to the forefront—campaign finance reform.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, a case in which it held that independent political spending by corporations (and other organizations) constitutes an exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, and therefore cannot be limited. In 2012, the Massachusetts Senate, outraged by the Court’s decision, approved a resolution imploring Congress to overrule Citizens United with a constitutional amendment. Of the five Democratic candidates for Congress in the Massachusetts Fifth, four support the measure. Only State Senator Will Brownsberger of Belmont opposes the resolution.

Senator Brownsberger’s position puts him at odds with his political competitors. At a recent candidates’ forum in Arlington, several candidates emphasized their opposition to Citizens United and equated that position with their progressive credentials. On Blue Mass Group—a prominent Massachusetts political blog—several commentators have cast Senator Brownsberger’s nay vote as a treachery to progressive values, a sign of ambivalence to campaign finance reform.

But Senator Brownsberger’s position is actually far more nuanced than that, and rests on his understanding that the resolution in question, rather than simply asserting the ill effects of corporate influence in politics or suggesting that the Court has ruled incorrectly, actually calls for a constitutional amendment.

Limiting corruption in politics is an issue of utmost importance, but a constitutional amendment is an ill-advised solution. Because the Court’s decision was grounded in the First Amendment’s free speech clause, any amendment to overturn Citizens United would have to revolve around a redefinition of “speech” allowing limitations on a corporation’s ability to buy airspace or other media. Money, of course, is not speech—and as such, it is perfectly fine that we limit how much money an organization can give directly to a candidate. But when that money is used to create or disseminate a form of political speech—such as an advocacy ad—I don’t see how the government can limit it. Yet such a limitation is exactly the aim of the resolution that Senator Brownsberger opposes.

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said that sunlight is the “best of disinfectants,” and that sentiment still rings true today. Transparency is the key to victory in the battle over campaign finance reform. We can mitigate the influence of big money in our political system without barring certain kinds of organizations from presenting their message to the voters.

Whenever a corporation, organization, or even an individual funds political speech (such as a political ad), that information should be made clear to the public. Any group that spends money for political purposes should be required to release the sources of its funding, just as actual candidates must release their finances. Political action committees should be required to present themselves in such a way that voters can easily discern their purpose, and candidates should be required to release any questionnaires they complete when courting the support of organizations. Steps such as these would create tangible reform without redefining or limiting speech.

Senator Brownsberger exemplifies these ideas more so than do any of his opponents. In the Legislature, he co-sponsored a bill (with fellow candidate Carl Sciortino of Medford) making disclosure laws more stringent for political action committees, and he is currently the only candidate who has released every questionnaire he has filled out for an organization—the answers and promises made by his opponents remain unknown to the voters.

Senator Brownsberger also stands alone in his refusal to accept campaign donations from corporations, unions, and political action committees. While railing against the undue influence of such organizations in the political process, the other candidates seem perfectly comfortable accepting their money.

Campaign finance reform is vital for creating a more open and democratic political system, but a constitutional amendment limiting the ability to produce and disseminate speech is simply not the answer. Senator Brownsberger is an example of thoughtful, transparent, and ethical politics, and his opposition to a largely symbolic resolution does nothing to change that.

John A. Griffin ’16 is a Crimson editorial writer in Lowell House.