Jimmy Carter: Unchecked campaign contributions are 'legal bribery'

'It's accepted fact,' Carter said during a speech in Atlanta. 'It's legal bribery of candidates. And that repayment may be in the form of an ambassadorship...'

|
David Goldman/AP
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter discusses U.S. election reform at the Carter Center, July 17, in Atlanta. Carter gave the keynote remarks Wednesday along with Ambassador Janez Lenarcic of the Warsaw-based Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that unchecked political contributions are "legal bribery of candidates" and denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made possible unlimited spending by outside groups, including corporations and labor unions.

"It's accepted fact," Carter said during a speech in Atlanta. "It's legal bribery of candidates. And that repayment may be in the form of an ambassadorship to someone who has raised three or four hundred thousand dollars to help a candidate get elected."

Carter spoke at a forum where an agency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe released its report on last year's U.S. election. The U.S. government invited the European agency to observe the process.

He said the U.S. Supreme Court made a "very stupid" decision by removing limits on independent campaign spending by businesses and labor unions, which the court found was a constitutionally protected form of political speech. The Democrat said that he and his Republican opponents used public financing to run their general election campaigns in 1976 and 1980.

Carter more generally criticized the amount of private contributions flowing into political campaigns.

"I would say that it's almost impossible for a candidate, like I was back in those early days or others even, to be considered seriously as a candidate to represent the Democratic or Republican parties as nominee if you can't raise $100 million or $200 million from contributors, many of whom know that they are making an investment in how they are going to be treated by the winner after the election is over," Carter said.

Carter said that while elections in the United States once set an example for the world, the country's reputation diminished in 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in a Florida vote recount, effectively deciding the election in favor of Republican George W. Bush. He also criticized GOP-led state legislatures for changing polling hours in ways that Carter said were meant to frustrate likely Democratic voters.

The OSCE report found that:

— The 2012 election was administered professionally and the public generally viewed the outcome as legitimate;

— Voter identification rules vary across the states and have become politicized;

— Political spending by outside groups can be exempt from disclosure requirements, raising transparency concerns;

— Rules on vote recounts vary widely and are not always clearly defined, which could result in complaints.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Jimmy Carter: Unchecked campaign contributions are 'legal bribery'
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0718/Jimmy-Carter-Unchecked-campaign-contributions-are-legal-bribery
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe