To be rich in the United States of America is to be privileged in many ways. But it should not mean that you can buy a privileged place in our democracy.

Yet on Wednesday, the Supreme Court offered the very wealthy a way to do precisely that. In a controversial, deeply divided opinion, the justices struck down individual limits on aggregate financial contributions in federal elections.

What does this mean? Under the law as it existed until Wednesday, an individual donor could give up to $123,200 to candidates and party organizations in a single election cycle. That cap was roughly equal to eight years of earnings for a full-time minimum-wage worker, or nearly three years of earnings for the typical American worker. Yet the Supreme Court struck down even that very generous cap, meaning that the voices of very privileged Americans will now become even louder – drowning out the voices of everyone else.

It is madness to say, as the Supreme Court did, in effect, that big money in campaigns has no undemocratic effect if it is not used in direct, corrupt buying of legislators’ votes. Our democracy does not need the granting of even more power and influence to the already-privileged.

A better way forward is the public financing of elections.  There are several examples of functioning public financing systems across America, including here in New Jersey.  For federal elections, I support the Fair Elections Now Act, which would leverage small dollar contributions by providing a 4 to 1 federal match of contributions of $100 or less.  I also support the Government by the People Act, which would provide a 9 to 1 federal match of contributions of $50 or less for candidates who refuse to accept money from PACs. Rather than amplifying the voices of the already-privileged, these bills would amplify the voices of ordinary people.

The first bill I ever cosponsored in Congress focused on campaign finance reform. Yet as this week’s news demonstrates, the work of protecting the integrity of our elections is never done.

Further Details on Grandfathered Flood Insurance Rates

President Obama recently signed into law the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which will help reform the National Flood Insurance Program to avoid enormous premium increases. In an eGenda following House passage in early March, I noted, “The legislation also restores “grandfathered” rates for homes and businesses that were remapped into higher-risk areas.”

A few readers requested further details. Properties that benefited from “grandfathered” rates will be allowed to continue paying their lower premiums for their flood insurance policies. For properties being newly mapped into areas with special flood hazards they will – for one year – be permitted to pay a lower-cost preferred risk premium, before gradual increases within the caps established by the law are allowed to take effect.

We are a nation exposed to ever greater flood risk, and flood insurance premiums will continue to reflect that risk. It is my hope that the reforms that have now been signed into law will provide certainty and affordability to property owners as we continue to plan for a changing climate.

Working for You

Recently I heard from a West Windsor woman who was being repeatedly contacted by the IRS about a tax liability – even though she had already paid the amount due.  On her behalf, I contacted the New Jersey Local Taxpayer Advocate, and the problem was quickly resolved.

Have you encountered a similar problem with the IRS, a passport center, the VA, Social Security, Medicare, or any other federal agency? If so, please call me at 1-87-RUSH-HOLT or by sending an e-mail. I’ll do all I can to address your problem.

As the April 15^thtax filing deadline approaches, you may also be interested in assistance in completing your tax return. A list of venues in New Jersey that offer free tax filing assistance is available online.