Very sad to hear that we lost Buddy Roemer today.
Buddy was a reformer Republican. In 2011, as a former congressperson and former governor (Lousiana), he determined to run for President, emphasizing the corruption of Congress, and the problem of money in politics. We needed, as he put it, a government “free to lead.” But we wouldn’t have that so long as politicians spent all their time raising money. As I described his campaign in Republic, Lost (2011):
Roemer has focused his campaign on a single issue: the role of money in politics. He has committed to taking no more than $100 from anyone. He will take no PAC contributions. He will disclose every contribution regardless of the amount to any organization that wants to audit. “Free to Lead” is the slogan of his campaign. And his promise is to leverage the mandate he would receive into a demand to change Congress.
In launching his campaign, Roemer embraced four principles that must guide any legislation designed to restore independence to Congress. As he described these principles in a lecture at Harvard:
First, no system for funding campaigns should try to silence anyone or any view. This was the kernel of truth in the Court’s Citizens United decision. The fact that it is a corporation that is speaking does not by its nature make the speech any less valuable or important to our system of democratic deliberation. We need to hear all sides, especially the sides we’re least likely to agree with.
Second, no system for funding campaigns should force any citizen to support political speech that he or she doesn’t believe in. Once a candidate is elected, of course, his or her salary is paid by the government. And I’m sure that all of you have, like I, cringed at the words of at least some of those whose salary we pay. But there’s a fundamental distinction between paying the salaries of government officials, and paying for the campaign of political candidates. Even if government money must be used to support such campaigns, we must assure that it is not used to advance ideas that are contrary to the taxpayer who is funding it.
Third, no bureaucrat in Washington should be in the business of deciding how much any campaign for Congress deserves to get. We can’t have a system where government decides the allowance that challengers to the government will get to wage their challenge. Instead, it is the people who should decide how much anyone should get to run his or her campaign.
And finally, any system must permit — indeed, encourageindividuals to give at least a small amount of their own money to support the campaigns that they believe in. If Barack Obama taught us anything, it was the extraordinary energy and importance that would come from getting millions to commit at least a small amount. Politics is not passive anymore. The Internet has made it possible for everyone to have skin in the game.
Four years later, of course, Donald Trump picked up on the corruption issue. “Drain the swamp,” he told us, and “Super PACs are a scam.” (Here’s a collection of his statements way back then.) But in 2012, the Republican Party was not ready for that message. It manipulated the debate rules to keep Buddy off stage. If he changed his principles, they told him, and accepted larger contributions, then maybe he could join the other Republicans. Translation: Give up on your principles, and then we’ll let you play.
When he was considering his run, Buddy came to visit with me to talk about ideas. He was earnest and ferociously committed. But what struck me most was his love. He had love for everyone you’d expect — his family, his friends, his country—but more than that, he had a love for the very process of bringing people to see the world as he did.
That love taught a generation what politics could be. And could be, I believe, still.
