CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM HAS FAILED: HOW DO WE BRING IT BACK?
Friday, January 22, 2010 at 08:35AM Corporate lobbyists and campaign finance reformers now have something in common: They are both anxiously awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court. The outcome could, in the opinion of one commentator, “loosen the floodgates of corporate money” into political campaigns. The corporate folks await such a decision with hope; their opponents, with naked fear. What no one is acknowledging, however, is that the “floodgates” already have been largely opened. Campaign finance reform has failed no matter how it is labeled, whether “McCain-Feingold” or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [BCRA].
One might as well say “So what!” to prevailing ceilings on corporate contributions and the limited constraints placed on lobbyists and lobbying. Corporate money pours into campaigns through wealthy individuals and their families, lobbyists, corporate PACs, corporate-sympathetic or affiliated “527” groups, chambers of commerce, other corporate-based not-for-profit organizations, etc. So, for the most part, a Supreme Court decision that states that corporate “free speech” has been unconstitutionally limited by the BCRA would confirm what is going on rather than represent a major shift. It would appear be a radical change only in light of a long legal history that declared corporate contributions to be illegal even in the face of a reality that increasingly evolved to demonstrate otherwise.
So, the question to be faced is not one of: What do we do now that the “floodgates” have been opened? It is: How do we effect meaningful and effective campaign finance reform given that the BCRA failed long before the Supreme Court decision had been passed down? We can answer this question by taking a step back to notice the great irony of campaign finance reform. It pretended to get big money out of politics via legislation and language that recognized only money as the critical resource of political campaigns. What about the value of peoples’ time contributed as political volunteers? Is politics with, by and for people or is it only about money?
I worked on the campaign finance reform [CFR] issue as a member of the Campaign Reform Committee of the Campaign for America during the ‘90’s. At the same time, I was working on a book to promote a grassroots, people-based politics, entitled WE THE PEOPLE: A Conservative Populism. By the time the book was published, I had developed an approach to CFR very different from that of the McCain-Feingold bill that became law as the BCRA. This approach was based on a contrary assumption -- that if we want a people’s House rather than the best Congress money can buy, we need to recognize that:
(1) People rather than money are the most critical resource of political campaigns; and that…
(2) The minimum value of peoples’ time, represented by the minimum wage, can be credited as a tax incentive up to the total annual value of the time that people contribute to political campaigns.
The sticking point of effective CFR has been limits on campaign expenditures. Such ceilings have been declared as unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, as limits to political “speech.” But what if such limits apply only to expenditures of money but not to expenditures of time? Then, total expenditures that include the imputed monetary value of volunteers’ time could be unlimited and so more likely to pass Supreme Court review. This is the basis of a new approach to CFR, one that brings American politics back to people and away from the corruption of big money. It also provides an incentive for people to participate in a political process that should be theirs but which has been largely taken over by political pro’s, careerists and media.
Other reformers, including Granny D and Rep. Jim Splaine here in NH, say that the only solution is public financing of campaigns. They are wrong on several counts. The three prime objections to public financing are: (i) What economists call the “deadweight burden” of the subsidy provided to candidates is too high. A large percentage of those subsidized would run even without public funding; (ii) Public financing would aggravate rather than reduce the high rate of inflation of the costs of campaigns; and (iii) Many people object to having their tax dollars used to help finance candidates they do not like.
Anyway, It’s high time to bring CFR back, high up on the public agenda as part of a larger strategy to reform Congress. The only NH candidate for Congress to do this is Peter Bearse.
Released by Peter Bearse, Ph.D.., Independent-Conservative Candidate for Congress, January 21, 2010
Reader Comments (6)
This may be a good idea Mr. Bearse, PhD but unless you can come up with some practical ideas and way to bring these practical ideas to the voters. Your ideas are just like your campaign for Congress.
Good cocktail conversation.
Yes, many candidate would have run without the program, but that is not dead weight: we the people are glad for them to care more now about the people who elected them than the donors who used to bankroll them.
I have joined Granny D's cause for the past decade and more because I think it is part of the solution -- allowing for voluntary public funding of campaigns gives candidates who don't want to beg for money from major financial sources and who don't have a deep pocket of their own to qualify, by getting a large number of small donations from citizens within their district, for a pool of funding that will allow them to be competitive. Maine has such a process, as does eleven other states. There are over 130 Congressional cosponsors on legislation to set up a similar process of federal candidates. That is one way to take reliance of big money out of politics.
But we also need to have disclosure -- transparency -- to be aware of whom is trying to buy political and government influence with whom. We need to be able to clearly trace where money is coming from to sponsor which candidates. It is the public's right-to-know about which candidates are possibly being bought and paid for before they decide to whom to give their votes.
That means we need better disclosure laws, more immediate disclosure of political contributions, and a clearer indication of who is paying for those attack ads that suddenly appear on our 42 inch HD television sets, which soon will be 3-D.
The current system is exploited by both Democrats and Republicans. We just need to be sure the public sees who's trying to sell them a bill of goods before they buy them.
Simply require Transparency. Let us know who's saying what, who's buying what, who's prooting who....and let voters make their own decision in the privacy of the voting booth.
Freedom works.
JIM: Please forgive the overstatement; I should not have included the word "only." We can agree to disagree about public financing. I love Granny D; I've walked with her. We should all celebrate her centennial and here roles as New Hampshire's leading activist. But I have to disagree with her, too, on the issue.
As for your stress on transparency, we're 4-square together. The Supreme Court decision raises the bar for us to find more timely and powerful ways to ensure reporting on campaign contributions – from whom, when and where in real time. Let's pick up the challenge together. You're right; shed the light bright and let people draw their own conclusions of who's being bought and paid for by big money interests.
Thank you again for your good work and thoughtful response. PETER
NB: posted and edited by NHInsider on request of Mr. Peter Bearse
/bobdm
You further wrote: "Your ideas are just like your campaign for Congress. Good cocktail conversation." I could take this as a snide remark, unworthy of your generally worthy blogs. The "good cocktail party conversation," though, helps to raise money over drinks.
Good "ideas", moreover, are one of my strong suits. They make my campaign message stand out from the others, along with other features that clearly set the candidate apart. These include being: (1) the only Dr. (Ph.D.) of Economics fully able to lead the way on economic recovery and help folks through the hard times; (2) the only long-term (40 year) activist in a time when activists are jumping in to make a real difference (as in Massachusetts); the only candidate to have set forth a new, 21st Century "Contract with America" (leading, not following Gingrich recent remarks of how he's now working on this); and the only candidate to pledge to use most of his congressional salary to establish two additional constituent service centers to help folks (in the northern part of the district, where constituent services are lacking). Not "practical" enough for you, when the poor state of the economy is overwhelmingly issue #1??
PETER
NB: Posted by NHInsider on request of Peter Bearse.