You have permission to edit this article.

Letter: The anniversary of a big mistake and a bipartisan way to fix it

  • 3

It surprises many to learn that the influence of big money in American politics is not a partisan issue, and that 80% percent of Americans feel that they are disenfranchised by the domination of our political system by the money of the powerful few. Here in Virginia, record amounts of money, $121.5 million, were spent on the 2019 elections, up two-fold from 2011. 

Republicans have historically had the edge over Democrats in fundraising, but now that money is pouring in from out-of-state, the last election cycle resulted in Democrats outraising Republicans by more than $16 million.

This massive amount of money is partially linked to the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month. Ten years ago, on Jan. 21, 2010, the court ruled in favor of Citizens United. This ruling equated people with corporations, and money with free speech, resulting in billions of dollars being pumped into our elections. This decision was supposedly untethered from candidates or political parties, but in fact, greatly influences the decisions of our elected officials.

This has been aggravated by our lax campaign finance laws in Virginia. Legislators in our state, unique in our nation, are bound by no limits on campaign contributions which they can then use for personal use. Historically this has allowed business and special interest to dictate state pipeline policies, underfund schools and keep tobacco taxes low and payday interest rates high. 

Yet, last year, more than 10 campaign finance bills were introduced in the last Virginia General Assembly where they died. Perhaps, as stated in a Jan. 2 Virginia Mercury article “campaign finance reform doesn’t appear to be a major piece of this year’s agenda." This article additionally quotes Del. Joe Lindsey, D-Norfolk, the current chairman of the House Privileges and Elections Committee as saying “... I just don’t know if there’s the will to change the landscape.” 

Unprecedented amount of money in our elections have had a corrupting influence on our politicians which is damaging to all citizens regardless of party. And Virginians, whether Republicans or Democrats, care about this issue. Last week, petitions signed by more than 400 people -- both Democrats and Republicans, were recently sent to the General Assembly, highlighting Virginians’ desire to get big money out of politics. They believe that special interests have undermined the “American Promise,” meaning the right of the American people to determine their elections and public policy. We can only  take hope from the words of Sen. Creigh Deeds, the chairman of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee as he notes that he “thinks that we’ve got to do everything we can to restore people’s trust in government.”

Animated debate in our Privileges and Elections Committee in both the Senate and House of Delegates are increasingly focused on the issue of money in politics. In Fauquier County and throughout Virginia, we hope that our representatives, such as Sen. Jill H. Vogel, reelected for her third term in the Virginia Senate, will join a number of her fellow legislators on the Privileges and Elections Committee in supporting efforts to implement campaign finance reform in Virginia. Virginia can change its reputation as a “pay to play” state by passing bi-partisan legislation to limit campaign finance contributions, ban donations to elected officials from public service corporations, restrict personal use of campaign finance contributions and increase disclosure in political advertising.

Yet, on the national scene, to effect lasting change, a more permanent solution is needed. A bipartisan consensus is building among people of all political stripes in favor of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would reverse the effects of Citizens United. To date, more than 250 members of Congress have co-sponsored a resolution which supports this constitutional amendment which would allow Congress to enact legislation which allows Congress to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. We are proud of our congressional representatives, Reps. Beyer, Connolly, Wexton, Spanberger, and McEichen, along with our two senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, for signing these resolutions. 

A nonpartisan national organization called American Promise is backing an amendment to the U.S. constitution to get big money out of politics and the members of the Virginia chapter are working hard to have Virginia become the 21st state to pass a resolution supporting overturning Citizens United and to support campaign finance reform in Virginia. We encourage all Virginia elected officials to support legislation which authorizes effective election spending rules and reaffirms our commitment of a government for and by the people.

To find out more about this effort and the NoVa Chapter of American Promise, go to  

Nathan Morovitz


2020 was a year marked by hardships and challenges, but the Fauquier community has proven resilient. The Fauquier Times is honored to serve as your community companion. To say thank you for your continued support, we’d like to offer all our subscribers -- new or returning --


We understand the importance of working to keep our community strong and connected. As we move forward together into 2021, it will take commitment, communication, creativity, and a strong connection with those who are most affected by the stories we cover.

We are dedicated to providing the reliable, local journalism you have come to expect. We are committed to serving you with renewed energy and growing resources. Let the Fauquier Times be your community companion throughout 2021, and for many years to come.


Recommended for you

(3) comments


A good start would be for NO donations for candidates that don't directly pertain to you. This last election was basically financed by Bloomberg and his anti gun platform, the Soros campaign for DAs and States AGs is over the top.

Yet these same people will try and accuse others of 'influencing elections'.

When Ms Guzman spends 1.2 million & Mr Jordan .5 million for a 'job' that pays 17000 a year, somthing isn't quite right.

Yes, I did not approve of the Koch Bros and their influence on the R side.

I still wonder why WE are being charged Beacoup Bucks to investigate a Billionaire who got into Politics when the REAL question should be how does a lifelong pol become a millionaire/multi-millionaire when he/she has spent the majority of their adult life on the 'public payroll'.?

All of the above is for BOTH sides of the aisle.


I don't think money buys voters.

Voters vote how they want to vote regardless of contributions. Money may buy elected officials, but shame on the voters if they elect such people to office.

It all comes down to our votes and whether or not we choose wisely when we cast those votes. Oh, and add that how you draw the district -- defining who is eligible to vote -- determines who gets to make those decisions. Past district drawing was performed to the advantage of Republicans; Future district drawing will be in the hands of the prevailing party in the last election.


It doesn't particulary 'buy' individual voters.

But--The more money one has, the more 'face' time the candidate has, be it on lawn signs, TV or Radio etc....

Notice Judge Judy was running promos for Bloomberg during HER show but someone must have 'warned' her that by openly making a choice she can alienate about 50 percent of her office.

I haven't noticed in the last week or so but have seen where Bloomberg picked up the slack.

As to your ref to district drawing, the Rs were 'in charge' yet a Fed Judge basically drew the boundaries...We in the Bealeton area of Fauquier had a choice of delegates who lived in Dale City & Woodbridge

The big question has always been....why in the world would someone spent a million bucks to run for a job that pays 17 thou per annum?

Yes, there is civic duty etc but the premise doesn't make sense.

I realize that occasionally there are some 'off beat' issues or proposals but - like I tell the solicitors (on both sides) as I am walking into the voting venue...If I don't know who I want by now, I wouldn't really be all that serious.

Do you think it is proper for someone to go the the voting machine with a FILLED OUT 'sample ballot' in hand?

Maybe an empty sample but, like I said, you should have a pretty good idea of who you are voting for when you get there.

Knowing there was only a 1 seat advantage in one 'house' and 3? in the other, why did the VIRGINIA REPUBLICAN 'PARTY' let the Ds run unopposed in some 30 or so districts...

Finally (whew) all of this is for naught if only 30-40% of the eligible voters get out and vote

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

The future of Fauquier Times now depends on community support. Your donation will help us continue to improve our journalism through in-depth local news coverage and expanded reader engagement.

Keeping you connected to the Community. Find or Submit your local event here..