CATHOLIC TEACHING ON POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY

Pope John Paul II in a 1997 address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stated, "Democracy is only possible on the basis of a correct conception of the human person, which involves the recognition of the right of each person to take an active part in public life with a view to achieving the common good."

• The pope's statement should be understood in the context of Catholic social teaching:
• Human dignity is the keystone from which all other principles flow.
• As Catholics, we have an obligation to bring the values of our faith into the public arena and to add our voices to the discussion of what constitutes the common good.
• Responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation.
• All people have a right to participate in the political process. This is an inalienable right based in human nature and not a privilege of wealth.

CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Catholic social teaching cautions us to take account of the role of money in public life. Aetatis Novae (1992) the Pontifical Council for Social Communications said: "It is not acceptable that the exercise of the freedom of communication should depend upon wealth, education, or political power." (Part III D, 15).

Here in Illinois, the Catholic Bishops' Position Statement on Campaign Finance Reform (October 1998) articulated the principle that: "People with more money should not be allowed to dominate the political debate or monopolize access to elected officials. Access to money or possession of wealth should not be the prerequisite to conducting a viable campaign for public office."

Thus the dignity which undergirds all the principles of our teaching is violated when some people matter more in the political process solely because they have greater financial resources than others.

• High campaign costs may "limit political competition to wealthy candidates or groups,…." (Pontifical Council for Social Communications in Ethics in Advertising 1997) The necessity to raise large sums of money discourages many who are led to public service from even seeking elective office.

• The most vulnerable are especially disadvantaged. The poor cannot afford to make their voices heard through large campaign contributions, let alone to fund their own campaigns for public office.
• The distasteful task of fund-raising often drives well-regarded elected officials to leave office. It has become commonplace for legislators to cite the burden of constantly having to solicit campaign contributions as a main reason why they chose to leave office.
• High campaign costs may also limit voter choice and discourage voter interest. In over 80% of primary elections for Congress, candidates who out-spend their opponents are the victors. This is one factor contributing to general elections which present very limited choices to voters.
• High campaign costs also affect the quality of public policy in a host of ways:

The need to obtain large campaign contributions to pay for political advertising may "require that office seekers compromise their integrity and independence by over-dependence on special interests for funds." (Pontifical Council for Social Communications in Ethics in Advertising)

• Major contributors generally have unparalleled access to elected officials. In addition to their financial clout, their special access may affect votes by legislators and decisions by public officials.

• The most vulnerable in society are also the most disadvantaged in the halls of government. As the U.S. Catholic Bishops have observed, despite our economic strengths and vibrant democratic traditions, our country - and disproportionately the poor - still suffer from violence in our schools and communities and against the unborn; persistent poverty, in particular among children; a widening gap between rich and poor; and inadequate health care and decent or affordable housing for many families. Yet the agenda of poor people and of average working people is not primary on legislative agendas weighted toward the interests of campaign contributors.
• The sheer time devoted to fund-raising diverts legislators from the public business.

All of these factors, in both electoral and governmental arenas, seem to combine to produce perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all: a generalized loss of public trust and confidence, not only in particular officials, but in our political system itself. Public cynicism about politics, in turn, undermines the capacity of the system to do good, while discouraging many people from exercising their right to vote.

These problems are especially acute in Illinois. Illinois has fairly extensive campaign contribution reporting laws. However, unlike most states, which restrict the amount of money any one donor can contribute to a candidate, Illinois places no limit on the amounts of contributions. Also unlike most states, Illinois allows corporations to fund political campaigns. Campaigns for office at all levels are increasingly dependent on contributions from interests narrowly focused on monetary benefits to a small group, not on the over-all public interest.

Predictably, elections in Illinois have become steadily more expensive. In 1998, candidates for statewide and legislative offices spent more than $90 million. Even candidates for the judiciary are increasingly joining the trend of hefty campaign spending, which raises concerns that judicial independence may be compromised.

Attention must then turn to what we would ask of our legislators with regard to campaign finance reform.

Consistent with what we as faithful people and faithful citizens believe, we propose that the State of Illinois adopt a reform package permitting candidates to adopt voluntary campaign spending and contribution limits, in return for partial public financing of their campaigns.

We do not endorse any specific proposals. We simply recommend the general approach of permitting candidates to adopt meaningful, voluntary campaign spending and contribution limits, in return for partial but significant public financing of their campaigns. The level of public financing must be sufficient to attract voluntary participation by candidates and to give them a fair chance to compete in elections. For example, it would be a pointless exercise to set spending and contribution limits so high as to have no meaningful impact, or to set partial public financing so low as to provide no real incentives or opportunities for candidates. Such a hollow "reform" would only add to public cynicism about the political and legislative process.

If incorporated in a genuine and serious reform package, we believe some version of public financing could help to open up the electoral process to more candidates, and especially to those not wealthy or connected to wealthy supporters. This also promises to make the legislative process and government policy less dependent on the influence of monied campaign contributors, and more likely to respond to the public interest, including the interests of the poor. All of this, in turn, may serve to strengthen public interest and confidence in our political process.

Peace and Social Justice Ministry
Diocese of Joliet

frontpage