(I think this is #2, anyway.)
First off, I love how public financing of elections is considered to be "clean", as if people spending their own money is somehow "dirty". The whole notion that there's even a problem with campaign spending is absurd, considering that Americans spend about as much on federal elections each election cycle as we do on Barbie dolls. As Edward H. Crane of the Cato Institute argued before the Senate in 1997,
Why is it that Donald Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, or Gary Trudeau, the liberal cartoonist, can lavish virtually millions of dollars of support toward a candidate they support or against a candidate they oppose? And is it bad that they can do so? Of course not. They are part of a healthy open democracy, whether one agrees with them or not. If the answer is that it is because they are in the media and are therefore protected by the First Amendment that they can employ massive resources for and against candidates, then we are misreading the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to everyone in this room and, indeed, everyone in this country. The media do not have rights that the rest of us don't have.Limits on monetary expenditures are limits on speech. Pure and simple. Spin it any way you like, but by prohibiting a person from spending money to support a candidate you are severely limiting their ability to speak on behalf of their candidate -- speech requires spending money -- and no speech is more important than political speech.More importantly, the so-called solutions that are being proposed by advocates of campaign finance reform address essentially nonexistent problems. Yesterday USA Today, a great champion (as is most of the major media) of campaign finance reform, breathlessly reported that $260 million had been raised through "soft dollar" contributions in 1996. Let's see, isn't that about $1 per American? For this we want to infringe our rights to spend money as we see fit to promote political views we hold? Americans spend about as much on Barbie dolls each election cycle as we do on federal elections. Who are the self-appointed arbiters of American politics to say what is too little, enough, or too much to be spent on politics?
Bubba at Southpaw gets to the heart of the matter:
I realize there are cogent arguments against such public funding, but I think we all admit that the root of problems in politics is political favors. Common sense and human nature makes it naive for anyone to think that a politician won't feel beholden to his or her campaign donors.But he misses the correct solution. Rather than limiting speech, why not limit the power of the government to perform political favors? And how could that be accomplished? By limiting the power of government, period.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: as long as the government has the power to take money from one person and give it to someone else, people are going to find ways to influence politicians and get special favors. The only way to eliminate corruption in government is to drastically reduce the power of the government. No one will want to bribe an official who doesn't have the power to pay back the bribe with political favors.
What's particularly disturbing is that some groups, like Democracy Matters, are trying to change election laws with the express purpose of influencing the results of elections.
Advocates of public financing of elections have also argued that such a system would increase the number and diversity of candidates for office. And indeed that is precisely what has happened in Arizona. The Clean Elections Institute data show that there are more candidates running for office than before the implementation of the new system, and among these candidates are increased numbers of women and minorities.I don't care how many people of any particular group run for office or get elected to office, and changing election laws to give advantages to certain groups over others is, frankly, outrageous. Affirmative action was a bad idea for business and education, and it's certainly a bad idea for the democratic process. Absent public financing no one is locked out from an election because of their race, gender, religion, or anything else (except age for the young, and nation of birth for Presidential campaigns). If we truly want a nondiscriminatory society we need to realize that inequalities are inevitable when people are allowed to exercise their own free will.With all of this true, it is hard to believe that in a few years time the substance of Arizona politics will not change as well. On one hand traditionally under-represented groups will possess a stronger voice in the legislature and in the executive branch. On the other hand the influence of private money on the political process will be reduced. It is too early to claim victory, but the evidence to date strong suggests that the Democracy Matters tag line - Change Elections, Change America - may well correspond to what happens when elections are publicly funded.
This is why the Founding Fathers did not implement an income tax and were anti-tax in general. Their fear was that Power naturally sought to grow and expand at the expense of Liberty. They believed that factionalism and political corruption were at the root of the expansion of power. The tax code as it is currently constructed is a fertile ground for institutionalized corruption and thus the bargaining of power. With this in mind, it seems that to remove the corrupting power of money from the equation, we must remove the vehicle through which it most often enters the system, namely, a confusing tax code. Perhaps the answer to campaign reform would be a flat tax?
First, the Founding Fathers were not per se anti-tax: They opposed being taxed without representation. There were a bevy of taxes that the income tax replaced, including poll taxes and taxes on what you *might* make. Regardless, governments by necessity deal with the intake and outlay of money.
Second, your idea of reducing the power of government to eliminate graft and corruption sounds appealing, but let's look at some facts. Even if you take the most conservative and limited view of government, you're talking about distributing money from one group to another via contracts. Just at look at defense spending. Even at its basic function, the government still spends money and corruption, as we have seen, is still possible.
Nothing will eliminate it completely. But let me suggest something about campaign funding: How many elected politicians create these boondoggles and unnecessary government expenses to satisfy not only constuents but donors? I think it's a significant portion. Eliminate the monetary obligations and you might very well get the spending reduction you want.
Tb: Granted, defense spending is necessary, but it's not blatant wealth redistribution like, for example, agricultural subsidies are. Further, I don't understand what you mean about contracts distributing money... do you mean government expenditures, or the enforcement of private contracts?
Tx Bubba,(long)
You are of course correct in that the Founders were not anti-tax so much as against being taxed without representation. Perhaps I should have said they were wary of taxes? They never envisioned an Income Tax whereby the government took money weekly for its own use. Regardless, this wasn't the real point.
I realize that changing the tax code isn't the end-all, be-all, and I wasn't talking about distributing money via contracts. I was specifically discussing taking away the congressional middle-men from the equation. Without the ability to play around with the tax code, giving a break to one special interest group here, raising the rates on another there, the attractiveness of giving boatloads of money to a politician would probably be less. I think the idea of simplifying the tax code could remove some of the problem. The issues you raise require some other approaches.
You make a good point about politicians creating causes or institutions, boondoggles, to funnel funds to constituents. Your idea that to "eliminate the monetary obligations and you might very well get the spending reduction you want" sounds like a desire for complete public campaign financing. However, regardless of the money source, public or private, won't politicians still be beholden to their electorate to provide benefits and boondoggles if they desire reelection? Thus, I don't see how removing private donations removes the incentive to please constituents.
Regarding the contracts, I agree that the desire for government contracts would still be large enough to put money into the political system. But I don't see this as a negative. Those who desire contracts are constituents, with all of the same rights of free speech as any individual donor, and often more legal limits. However, if you view lobbyists as agents of corruption, which is where we apparently differ, then I can see why you would want to limit their effectiveness by removing their ability to donate to a politician. I don't view them as inherently corrupt, but as representatives of a constituency, their employees and themselves. They are every bit as important and valid as those who lobby for cancer research or environmental causes.
The McCain-Feingold "reform" is a perfect instance of a "noble" concept that has already been corrupted. Did anyone know what a 527 was before this election? It seems that what really occurs every time we attempt to reform campaign financing is that an elaborate shell game is created to get the money to the politicians. Instead, I'd propose we remove the shells so that all can see who donates what to whom. If some method of widely available public notification of these donations is also required, all the better.
This started as a discussion on the tax code, and that's where I want to end. There is difference between the expectations of those who donate for tax relief and those who do so for contractual gains. The former are looking to reduce the burden of money they send to the government, the latter to increase the money they receive from the government. Regarding the latter, contracts are awarded based on merit, ability and, yes, sometimes corruption. That is why it requires requires government oversight, be it some independent agency or congressional, political opposition and lobbyists with competing goals. This would be true whether campaigns were publicly or privately financed. Linking campaign finance reform to contract oversight is well nigh impossible. On the other hand, a flat tax would disincentivize political donations aimed at influencing a reduction in tax burden. Half of the battle would be won.
Marc C.--I agree that good intentions get thwarted. That's one reason campaign finance reform is almost pointless. As for the tax code, I confess to despising it and liking it. It is a way to create so many loopholes for special interests, and that annoys me. At the same time, I think some are fair. Having children significantly impacts the money you have for spending. My wife and I would be living a much different life without our children. :) But our disposable income is much less now. Not only that, but tax breaks are a way to create incentives to change behaviors. That may sound omninous or deplorable or beyond the reach of government, but sometimes we need to change our behaviors for the good of the country.
And let me throw this out: Not having tax breaks itself creates incentives, so the government and taxes are never really divorced from influencing our behaviors.
That said, I realize the problems tax breaks invite. There's no easy solution, as you folks realize.
Michael--I think the government distributes money to friends and cohorts through seemingly or even very legal means. I'll award company X this contract because, while they're not the cheapest, they're the most reliable (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). It's not a redistribution of wealth as it's popularly known (which is a Marxist model) but it's redistribution nonetheless. Let me clarify that, of course, not all contracts are abused as I've described. But I think many are.
As for subsidies, I largely agree with you and Marc that these are problems are money give-aways. The question is do they help the nation as a whole. For example, during WWII, we had a mohair subsidy to help with war materials. But it became a permanent fixture in our budget, and I have long criticized Tx Dem Rep. Charlie Stenholm for continuing that subsidy, even though he had ranchers in his district who benefitted from that subsidy.
Anytime there's payment from government coffers to a private entity, it's an opportunity for abuse.
Good posts, folks.
T & M: Yes, as long as the government has money to spend there's a potential for abuse. Minimize (not eliminate, necessary) government's hold on our money, and you can minimize (but not eliminate) the abuse. Passing laws won't fix anything -- shell games, as Marc said.