Campaign finance reform is always on the periphery of politics, but not because the politicians in power want to change the very system that they have carefully constructed to maintain the status quo. Rather, these reforms are trotted out every so often as a means of placating the public, to assure us that our elected officials are making every effort to stay noble to the cause of public service while avoiding possible conflicts of interest with potential donors. The truth is that campaign finance is a sham, a game played by the wealthy corporations and the individuals that run them. Our system of funding candidates and elections is nothing more than a shell game run by charlatans. Despite the large number of complex regulations currently applied to campaign financing, the fact of the matter is that the system has been brutally finessed by those who seek access to power and have the money to buy it.
A primary cause for voter apathy is the fact that most political candidates do not represent the average citizen. It is hard to get enthusiastic about electing as your representative to the lawmaking halls of society someone with whom you have no common connection or point of view. The average citizen is not born in a wealthy family. They are not universally educated at the most expensive universities. They do not have six figure incomes, luxury boats, or domestic servants. Now take a look at the average politician at the federal and state levels of government. Most are millionaires, from well off families, living a life more luxurious than their countrymen. For people in this position, it becomes difficult to imagine, let alone empathize with, the life of ordinary people. But the costs associated with running an election, even a relatively small local contest, is beyond the means of most citizens who would likely take a shot at being involved if only they could afford the price of admission. What we end up with is the usual slate of candidates, well connected to the established political machines and corporate donors, offering little real choice for voters who crave change. For those left in the game (for that’s what it has truly become) the commencing battle becomes less one of ideas than one of wallets. The only winners are the corporations themselves, giving money for access and getting it back threefold or more when their candidate gets in. They play the odds and support both sides, so they’re always guaranteed a victory. And while it may be technically illegal under today’s laws for corporations to donate to a candidate directly, the spirit of the campaign finance laws are always circumnavigated by the crafty legal teams hired by the corporations and wealthy individuals who think that their great wealth gives them the right to rule the world.
Real reform is what we need if we are going to have a shot at getting our government back from the corporate interests who dominate the halls of legislation these days. We must leveling the playing field for candidates and lower the costs of running a campaign. First, we must enact tight spending limits on all campaigns including the amount of money a candidate (or their campaign committee) can collect. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of money donated, thereby reducing the inequity of influence by donors. Limits can be based on a cost per voter formula, costs per week of campaigning, or other such assessment. Second, we much put a cap on the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign and eliminate any kind of collective corporate, union, or PAC donation drives. This cap could be tiered for each level of government, with a lower threshold set for local elections up to a maximum of $1,000 per person in federal elections. This regulation would have the effect of removing inappropriate influence from single entities contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign, in effect buying a candidate. It would also give individuals greater control over their own political dollars by eliminating de facto political contributions culled from membership dues and other collective, but not necessarily elective, mandatory costs. Third, we must limit the number of weeks that active campaign advertising can take place, both for a primary run-off and a general election. By reducing the length of campaign advertising to within a month before a primary or general election, we would not only force candidates to spread their message through actually meeting and talking with constituents, we would reduce the costs of campaigning by reducing the amount of advertising that would be purchased.
Next, we must mandate that commercial broadcasters (who currently have practically free reign of the publicly owned airwaves and broadband spectrums) provide free political advertising for all candidates in a general election and token rates for all candidates in a primary election. These businesses exist at the good will of the Congress, with a stated obligation to use their frequencies for the public good. It is arguable that television shows are somewhat to blame for the dumbing down of Americans, so merely running their regular programming, laced with commercial messages, doesn’t really satisfy the obligation. Mandating political advertising concessions would be a small price for these companies to pay for the privilege of growing rich on the publics back. In return, broadcasters could be free to charge whatever rate they could command for any private political ads, provided they are issue oriented and contain no reference to a specific candidate. Such soft-money ads are often just a front for a candidates political assassin squad, but eliminating their ability to discuss anything but a particular public issue, without mentioning a candidates name or position, would remove some of their persuasive power, at least so far as demonizing a candidate is concerned, and would make the public learn about a candidates views by talking to them instead of relying on sound bites.
Fifth, limit political party contributions to candidates, making would-be politicians focus their energy on meeting the citizens and raising money through them. Political party funds could instead be used to pay for bipartisan (or multi-partisan) election commissions who would monitor, organize, and validate election results, prepare voter informational materials and cover the hard costs of having an election. And finally, each level of government should establish a specific fund that would pay the living costs of the non-incumbent, local and state candidates during the general election campaign cycle, up to a certain amount. This would allow people who have public service in their blood the ability to make a run for office without having to lose their home or have their kids go hungry while they were on the campaign trail. We’re not talking about extravagant funds, but enough to make the bills while standing up for election.
When it comes to the candidates themselves, there are several ways we can reduce the costs associated with entering politics, and reduce the probability of improper influence peddling through political contributions. First, we should remove any regulations that allow a prospective candidate to purchase their way on to the ballot. In many areas, in order to qualify for a primary ballot, you must collect a significant number of signatures from people living in the district you wish to represent. Or you can just pay a fee, usually more than a thousand dollars for federal or state office, and several hundreds for many local races. Those with the money just pay the fee, bypassing the whole “connect with the common man” element that signature gathering fosters. But the number of signatures is usually next to impossible for a working person who can’t afford to pony up the dollars to get in the door. Level the playing field here and you’ll get more people who look like the voters. Let’s remove the “fee option” and reduce the total number of signatures required to get on a primary ballot.
Also, we
should prohibit all elected officials from soliciting donations prior to three months before an election. They are not supposed to be campaigning during their terms anyhow. It is hard to govern when you spend all your time begging for money. That, and the fact that their incumbency should give them an upper hand in collecting campaign funds would reduce their exposure even more to those who would try to buy influence. First time candidates could get and extra month or two to raise funds and build name recognition. At the end of an election, all campaign funds not used would go to the national campaign fund or be divided by the prominent political parties for use in the next election cycle. Presidential candidates would have somewhat larger collectible donation thresholds and longer campaign periods simply due the size of a national constituency.
The final piece of the puzzle is the administration of swift and harsh punishment for politicians or political professionals who violate the public campaign finance laws. If found guilty of gaming the system for their benefit or for another person’s benefit, they should be dealt with as treasonous individuals who would subvert our government for their own selfish gain. The rules should be clear and simple, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Any efforts to bypass the spirit of the law should also be dealt with by banishing the offender(s) from public political aspirations. Such unbending resoluteness against any corruption may be just the deterrent needed to help end the abuse and usher in Common Sense reform.
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 1st, 2005 at 6:51 am and is filed under Common Sense, Democracy, Government, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 1st, 2005 at 10:31 pm
If the name of your site is “Common Sense” than this post must be labeled uncommon sense. While some of the ideas may be feasible, they are not pratical. If you want “real” people as politicians, then you need to convince “real” people to run.
Having “free” advertising on commerical broadcasters would attract every kook party. They would want the “free” advertising. Since you want the no party support, you will cut back the support system for candidates.
The U.S. has done pretty well with its current political system. It is not the best system, but it works.
October 2nd, 2005 at 12:18 am
You mention limiting campaign contributions as part of the solution. The thing is, those limitations already exist. It’s just that large corporations and well-established interests are particularly adept at skirting them and encouraging people to support candidates and PACs that match their goals.
I would propose something very different as part of the solution: allow every American the opportunity to contribute a (capped) portion of his or her income to one or more campaigns or PACs, pre-tax.
Elections are often ‘won’ by corporate interests long before the polls open, by limiting the candidates on the ballot to those few who have garnered adequate campaign funds.
Imagine the impact of allowing Green Party candidates, for example, direct access to funds from voters who’ve indicated that they share environmental concerns by contributing to a PAC as part of their federal tax return. Result: far more money for Green Party campaign advertising and far more viable candidates.
Regardless of any particular ideology, this solution supports a far more democratic electoral process by involving people earlier in the process.
October 2nd, 2005 at 2:58 am
I propose taking it to even more stringent lengths: NO contributions from anyone. Before people start saying I’m crazy, allow me to explain.
The idea is taken from ethics policies regarding conflict-of-interest that are already in place for public employees. Example: public employees are forbidden to accept gifts from the public because it so obviously implies potential favoritism that it is viewed as a serious violation of ethics. As a public employee, I have been warned against accepting even a plate of holiday cookies from a client. Imagine how it would look for me to accept thousands of dollars as a “gift.” The strings attached are as obvious as the ones holding up the flying saucer in Plan 9 from Outer Space.
With my plan, however, each candidate would be given the exact same amount of media time (print and broadcast) to explain their platform, including debates. No glossy media blitz, no psychologically manipulative advertising designed by marketing wizards to twist minds with subjective propaganda, no taking a year of time from the job they were elected for to go off on campaign junkets. Just a couple of months of plain, unglamorized, unvarnished, straightforward explanations of who the candidates are and what they intend to do. “Boring!” the public would cry, at first. But the best possible situation, I say. Candidates with no strings attached.
October 2nd, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Very good ideas! I’ve been trying to incite ppl to think of solutions to this and other problems that have totally corrupted the whole election process.
As for the comment about letting “any kook party” have access to air time, we need more Independent candidates given the chance to state their platform. As it is, we have two choices, which have become two angry, egotistical, cometetive teams. At this point, this two sided game is accomplishing nothing. Also, I agree that we need to convince “real people” to run for office, and I believe more would, if they could run a “real” campaign. The Reps and Dems own the political process now, along with their special intrest groups, who pay to promote their ideology. If we make the Government change this, we might have some “real” choices.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Unlike IR above, I think our republic could use a bit more diversity in political parties that could yeild a broader selection rather than faithfully forcing a vote between the lesser of two evils.
Shea’s point about giving – outright – equal amounts of time for each and every candidate may go a long way, but certainly is not attractive or sexy for folks used to watching Paris Hilton bumble about America for kicks and giggles.
Ken’s post brings to mind one image for me – the person at your local grocery store soliciting signatures for a ballot measure or for some candidate to get on the ballot. I always ask, before I sign any pettition (for a person or a cause), how much is the person doing the work getting paid per signature and who’s paying them. This trips them up because mainly folks don’t care or are not informed about who is behind that person standing in front of you asking for your signature. Often, they are getting paid about a dollar a signature. If they dont’ say, then I don’t sign. If they do say, then I ask them what they are going to pay me for my signature. Usually, they don’t pay me anything. However, I think the days of honest individuals volunteering their time to support candidates has long since gone out the window.
In the end, the inequity of our political process needs to be leveled – and that has to come with some reform of both how people get on ballots and how they fund their campaigns. Those with large sums of capital can out-snazzy you in the infomercial, but certainly, the less sexy the official may be, perhaps, the right candidate for us. As it stands today, you can’t get in unless you are of independent means (or some one or group of people are willing to pac fund you). Back in May, we were talking about this very problem: http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/05/here-pac-there-pac-everywhere-pac-pac.html
Rendering a solution, will be tricky, because as you mention – the current set of politicians are not interested in changing the status quo that got them in a position where they can ardently protect their pocketbooks. It would be interesting to set campaign finance reform in motion, starting at the grass roots, becuase that may indeed be the only way it can be accomplished.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:35 am
The way I see it, one of your proposals makes the other ones almost unnecessary. Requiring TV and radio stations to offer free ads (equally) to all political parties and candidates. The public owns the airwaves and this should be part of all stations’ obligations in return for their FCC licenses.
If some fringe party with $8 to its name is competing with the Democrats and Republicans, they’ll all get the same amount of free advertising. Rightwingers will say that’s Socialism (or something less printable), but too bad. It’s the one way I can think of to totally make an end run around the wealth discrepancy. I don’t think any kind of campaign finance reform is workable. Wealthy people will always find a way to get their money channeled into their pet causes. The only thing we can do is make campaign donations irrelevant.
October 4th, 2005 at 4:22 am
(responses)
Island Rep- Uncommon sense is still sensible, just not readily accepted or appreciated due to a fear of change. Practicality is also only a state of mind, one which can be overcome, if the interests of people are put ahead of the interests of the dollar and the desire to hold on to power for power’s sake.
Sometimes it is helpful to read things more than once. If you had, you’d see that my thoughts on free political advertising was reserved for the general election (after the primaries) at which point only those who have advanced in the process would get the publicity. While this could indeed include “fringe” party candidates, in by no means is all inclusive to anyone who throws their hat into the ring. Obviously, some “cut-off” point would be drawn during the process.
And if you really think that the current political system is working, I have to question for whom it is working. Certainly not the common man and woman toiling to stay above water as costs rise, education suffers, and corporation make all the rules through their proxy legislators.
Thanks for dropping by and leaving some thoughts though.
Rambler Joe- Although there are laws on the books regarding campaign financing, they have enough loopholes to drive a truck through. We need to have laws that are “unskirtable” for any real semblance of change to occur.
I mentioned that contributions should only come from citizens, and even mentioned a $1,000 limit. You want to make that a pre-tax contribution? I have no trouble with that idea.
I agree that we need to make the system more accessible to a wider variety of candidates instead of limiting the real exposure to only those from the democratic or republican ticket.
Glad to hear your ideas.
Shea-I still think that average citizens should be able to support (financially) the candidate of their choice, but I can’t find too much fault with your ideas. Indeed, it would require people to pay more attention to the people running and not rely only on the sound bites we get today.
And personal political contributions (with a cap) would necessarily make candidates beholden to a specific set of donors, especially if we made the donations “blind.” The donors know to whom they give their money, but the candidates themselves would not.
Green eyed lady- Glad you stopped in and left some thoughts again. It’s been a while since I’ve heard from you. Change can come, but only from an involved citizenry. People need to come back to the table, but we need to fix the rules that would allow more honest debate and candidates to be involved too.
Windspike- Politics needn’t be sexy though, just honest. And I think that a more open political process is very important for any real change to occur. And I too think that all change must come from the grass roots level, since those who currently hold the reins of power won’t eagerly let things go.
Tom- Certainly free advertising would be a first step towards leveling the playing field, but it alone can’t fix everything. And campaign donations could still help lesser known candidates compete in the non-advertising parts of elections…like paying for meeting halls, political assistants, and the like.
Good to hear from you on this.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:57 am
The problem with most of your comments and proposed reforms is that they are either unworkable or just plain unconstitutional. Several of the reforms that you propose potentially violate freedom of speach, freedom of the press and due process rights.
Having been a candidate for a small local office, I can assure you that it is not that difficult for a qualified candidate to garner support. If you are an intelligent person with a coherent message, you can find the support and backing if you look hard enough. Both the Republicans and Democrats are always grooming candidates by using lower offices like planning groups and school boards. And there are plenty of groups who will endorse and support like-minded candidates.
There are many qualified individuals who just need the motivation to run. This can be accomplished with our without passing reforms that are of questionable constitutional validity. It would seem to me your message should focus on increasing involvement of the voters on a grassroots level, not passing dubious reforms.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:22 am
(response)
Carl- To proclaim something as unworkable without really trying to do it is a bit defeatist, isn’t it? Or does the status quo just seem all that appealing?
Keeping in mind that when the constitution was written, businesses were not legally viewed as having the same “inalienable rights” as human beings, nor did freedom of the press refer to television or radio profit margins, I don’t know that I would agree with tose interpretations of the constitution that would protect the rights of a corporation over the rights of individuals. Nor would I interpret it to be an invitation for Congress to dispose of the public domain just so a corporation could make a lot of money. My reforms do limit “group think donations” and instead rely on the individual to speak for themselves. My reforms allow for the public to get some benefit from what is rightfully thiers. I know my folks didn’t have a say in who got to use radio frequencies, nor did I. Freedom of the press refers to the right to publish news that is factual or ideas that are opinions without fear of governmental reprisal. It is about keeping an eye on the government and reporting to the people the things that government is doing. It is about protecting the words, not the method of delivery, especially an intangible, publically owned method like radio and television delivery.
I would agree that it is not difficult for “person with a coherent message” to get support from the major parties, especially when they adhere to that parties espoused platform. I submit though that the very “grooming” you refer to only exacerbates the cynical system that we have in place. Look at our politicians today. This esteemed grooming process just makes sure that those who play the game of greased palms and back scratching parties can get in the door while those with an eye for reform or Common Sense are shut out, kept away from the publics eye. The problem of only looking for like minded people is you discount reform because you don’t even look for it.
Which brings us to the whole motivation thing you mention. If I care about political corruption and want to get involved to set things straight, yet I can’t even get my name on the ballot because I’ve not been groomed, where does the motivation go, for both the voter and the would be candidate?
Dubious reforms only seem dubious to those who hold the reins of power and are wont to let them go. Still, if you read the article, you should have noted that I place plenty of blame on the rest of us, for it is our own lack of involvment that has let the problem fester so.
Thanks for the comment.
October 5th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
“In return, broadcasters could be free to charge whatever rate they could command for any private political ads, provided they are issue oriented and contain no reference to a specific candidate.”
This prompts some questions.
Could ads show a politican’s picture?
Isn’t an attack on the Iraq War an attack on Bush? Does an ad about the war count as “no reference?”
Were the Swift Boat ads “issue ads?”
Could you make a reference to our “current leadership” at all?
Do blogs count? Newspapers? What about cable or satellite radio?
It all depends on who gets to make and interpret your rules….
These are important questions.
Under your system, who answers them? A committee? Of whom? Congress? The head of the FCC (a Bush crony)?
Your ideas here are nothing but fertile ground for lawyers, who will argue endlessly (and expensively) about what constitutes a “reference.”
So it won’t work, and it will only make things more complex.
For example, presumably you would not allow Merck Pharmaceuticals to give money to John Corzine. Suppose the Pharmeceutical Manufacturer’s Association wants to cut him a check? Still illegal? Suppose it wants to have him speak at their conference? I assume that’s OK. But Corzine doesn’t speak for free. What is fair compensation for a US senator’s speech? $5,000? $50,000? $1 million? Do you know (and how do you know)? Are you going to tell Corzine how he can spend that money- i.e. tell him it can’t be used in his campaign? How? And considering that money is a fungible asset, how are you going to prove that he is spending it only on himself and not his “campaign?”
This endless desire to regulate political activity empowers a Big Brother type government that would make J. Edgar Hoover blush.
It makes criminals out of all politicians, and enables others to use “the law” to get people they don’t like.
It would just be easier to ban political speech by anyone but politicians and their campaigns.
But you would not be for that (I hope).
You continue to make references to the out-of-touch politicians and their corporate friends who refuse to yield to the will of the people. I agree that our politicians are loathsome creatures, but what specific policies are you talking about?
As for money in politics, be thankful there is not more of it. The entire election circuit in 2000 (all elections in the house, Senate and executive) cost $3 billion.
That is a ton of money, until you put into perspective.
Americans spent ten times that on dog food!