Make campaign contributions anonymous

[jsc1953]

(Note to mods...not necessarily a debate, but any political discussion may get contentious.)

I heard a commentator on NPR this morning (possibly a local segment, so I may not be able to provide a link) propose the following:

All political campaign contributions should be sent to a blind trust. The trustees would then forward those monies to the respective campaign, anonymously and in bulk.

This breaks the link between the donation and the donor...therefore, the politician would feel no compulsion to provide favors for such donations. The donor may want to call up the politician and say "I just sent you $100k; let's meet in your office" but the politician would be perfectly justified in not necessarily accepting this claim at face value.

This sidesteps neatly all objections that "donations are free speech". Feel free to donate to the campaign of your choice...just don't expect a quid pro quo, because your choice may not be able to recognize you. Lobbyists could continue to enjoy access to the politician...but without a briefcase full of cash, they may find it harder to get an appointment. And this doesn't require government funding of campaigns, and all the mess that entails.

The commentator didn't raise this further, but I will -- any direct contribution could then be taken as an attempted bribe.

This seems to me to be blindingly, scathingly brilliant. What are the possible objections?

[Merijeek]

The commentator didn't raise this further, but I will -- any direct contribution could then be taken as an attempted bribe.

This seems to me to be blindingly, scathingly brilliant. What are the possible objections?

I've wondered about that for a long time myself - I'm not sure why it hasn't been done, but I assume it's because of every lobbyist shouting "FUCK NO!" at the same time.

Then again, who would trust the trustees? It's all gotten so corrupt I don't see anything ever changing it. Too bad.

-Joe

[rjung]

*Beep!*

"Hi, Senator Slimeball, this is Joe Smith at Amalgamated Lobbyists calling. How ya doing? It's a nice day here, I just wanted to chat and say hi. Oh, you want to hear something funny? We've recently gotten a windfall of $300,000, and it's just lying around here -- the guys at the office are having a poll on how we want to spend it. Maybe we'll buy a yacht, or go on a vacation, or buy a year's supply of sodas for our interns. Haven't decided yet, that money could end up just about anywhere... Isn't that funny?

"Anyway, hope you have a nice day, and I hope that blind trust for your re-election campaign keeps growing. See ya!"

*Beep!*

[Captain Amazing]

At least in the current system, I can look at who donated what and know that Senator Smith is a shill of the poultry industry because they gave him $500,000. Under your system, I won't even know that.

[jsc1953]

At least in the current system, I can look at who donated what and know that Senator Smith is a shill of the poultry industry because they gave him $500,000. Under your system, I won't even know that.

Under the proposed system, Sen. Smith could listen to the poultry lobbyist, nod politely, and vote however he wants. He has no particular reason to believe that the lobby did indeed donate the $500k, so he's free to actually vote his conscience.

Now, if Sen. Smith wants to sell his vote, to anybody who even claims they funded his campaign... there's not much we can do about that.

[Captain Amazing]

Even if donating is made anonymous, you can bet Senator Smith is going to know Amalgamated Poultry gave him campaign money. If for no other reason, the Amalgamated Poultry people are going to tell him they gave him $500,000, and he can look at his "anonymous" totals and see that he's got donations of $500,000 more than usual.

The goal should be greater disclosure of campaign contributions, not less.

[Lemur866]

A method of regulation that depends on secrecy has a single-source failure. Once the secret is revealed the regulation fails, and the failure can't be corrected.

A method of regulation that depends on disclosure can fail, but the failure can be easily corrected once the lack of disclosure is discovered.

[jsc1953]

A method of regulation that depends on secrecy has a single-source failure. Once the secret is revealed the regulation fails, and the failure can't be corrected.

A method of regulation that depends on disclosure can fail, but the failure can be easily corrected once the lack of disclosure is discovered.

But this isn't a system of regulation, per se. It is not interested in limiting contributions. It is an attempt to eliminate the grey area between campaign donations and bribes, by removing any motivation (other than an altruistic one) to donate to a campaign.

[Civil Guy]

How to game the proposed system? Ummm, I suspect that ways could be found.

It's in the lobbyist's interests to make sure just that Senator Graft knows just where the largesse came from, and that the goodies can keep coming for as long as the good Senator shows appreciation for the lobbyist's clients' point of view. And anyhow, how is Senator Graft going to get re-elected if he runs out of funds for all the mailers that are needed?

At the least, we'd have a continuation of the current 'soft-money' situation, where the money goes to organizations sympathetic to the candidate, but not (provably) controled by the candidate.

The other angle I can think of quickly is that the contribution would not be money as such, but some other valuable that could most likely only have come from the donor. Such as... help me out here...

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Funny you should raise this question now that Mr. Moto has announced he's leaving. In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=293358&) I raised a similar question, only to have him (and Ravenman, and a few others) fail to get some of the points I was trying to raise, which resemble some of yours. Good Luck!

[BrainGlutton]

I've got a better idea: Make campaign contributions illegal, period. Give every candidate an allotment of free TV time, like in France.

[Lemur866]

Would you also make it illegal for me to advocate that people vote for a particular candidate?

Would you make it illegal for me to put a sign in my yard? Would you make it illegal for me to print up a bunch of signs and distribute them to others? How about if I stood on streetcorners holding up the sign? How about if I put up a billboard? How about if I purchased billboard space? How about if I printed up pamphlets explaining why I supported the candidate? How about if I stuffed those pamphlets into evelopes and mailed them to registered voters in my district? How about if I purchased space in a newspaper explaining why I supported the candidate? How about if I went on the radio show I host and endorsed the candidate? How about if I purchased advertising time on a radio show and endorsed the candidate? What if I endorsed the candidate on my blog? What if I put up a web page endorsing the candidate? What if I endorsed a candidate here on the SDMB?

Are all those going to be illegal as well?

[jsc1953]

Lemur, I think there's a huge difference between advocating for a candidate, and giving money to a candidate. There's no way that putting a sign in your yard can be considered a bribe; the same cannot be said of a direct campaign contribution.

I would also like to see government funding of campaigns, but I always get stuck on where one draws the line. Do you give as much funding/air time to the Vegetarian Party candidate as the Democrat/Republican?

[Lemur866]

Of course there is a difference. How about if you and me and Brainglutton and 200 of our closest friends got together to coordinate our advocacy? We could call our group a re-election committee. We'd all contribute our time. And for things that require money, like taking out ads, we'd contribute money. And we could solicit other people who believed in the candidate to contribute money as well, so we could get our message out more effectively. Those newspaper ads don't come cheap, unless you already own a newspaper.

I can't see a way to ban political advertisments without repealing the first amendment. I'm free to advocate for the election of a candidate. I'm free to do so in person, I'm free to distribute fliers, I'm free to do so in my newspaper, on my radio show, in newspaper ads, and in radio ads. And I'm free to coordinate my efforts with all the other people who endorse a candidate.

There's no way putting a sign in my yard could be considered a bribe. What if I pay to have signs put up in someone elses yard? Is that a bribe? What if I form a committee to put up signs, and get everyone to contribute money, and put up signs where I think it will do the most good? Is that a bribe? What if I just write a check to that committee, because I support the candidate? Is that a bribe?

There's no principled distinction I can see between putting up a sign and paying to put up a sign.

[jsc1953]

You've convinced me, Lemur. As long as campaigns are long and expensive, those who pay the costs will have influence and leverage over the candidate -- whether those funds are given to the candidate directly, indirectly, or by independent groups on his behalf.

So the system is hopelessly corrupt. The only solution is to make campaigns short and/or inexpensive, through government funding. Running for president? Great...here's $1M. Buy yourself a few commercials; knock yourself out. We may actually see meaningful debates (which are free) rather than attack ads.

[Alessan]

This breaks the link between the donation and the donor...therefore, the politician would feel no compulsion to provide favors for such donations. The donor may want to call up the politician and say "I just sent you $100k; let's meet in your office" but the politician would be perfectly justified in not necessarily accepting this claim at face value.

"I just sent you $102,537 and 83 cents. Check your account. Shall we make it, say, 10:30?"

See, I just managed to game the system, and I'm not even a politician.

[silenus]

Besides, if we shifted to the proposed system, we'd have to change the definition of an "honest politician." :D

[jsc1953]

"I just sent you $102,537 and 83 cents. Check your account. Shall we make it, say, 10:30?"

See, I just managed to game the system, and I'm not even a politician.

Not quite that easy; the contributions would be bundled together by the trustee. There would be no single line item in this amount.

[SuaSponte]

In addition to the practical obstacles nicely set forth by Lemur, there is the fact that giving a monetary donation is itself a political message - I'm not just expressing an opinion about candidate/issue/etc., I believe in it so strongly that I am going to give away my hard-earned money to help make it happen. "Put your money where your mouth is."

Sua

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Not quite that easy; the contributions would be bundled together by the trustee. There would be no single line item in this amount.All this does is add some noise to the communications channel or (depending on implementation) force a third party as intermediary.

If the contribution "bundling" happens often enough then all a donor has to do is coordinate with the politician to give within a certain period and give enough that the donation is distinguishable from the noise of an average donation period.

If the bundling happens seldom enough that the above stratagy is not sufficient to ensure shared information about donating, then third-party groups will simply arise that will accept (and be accountable for) donations from interested donors and will themselves be able to make large enough donations at intervals.

Just off the top of my head, here are some other ways to circumvent the system:
For sufficiently large donations (which are really the ones we're concerned with), have a political staffer accompany the donor from his financial institution to the contribution trustee.
Create a publicly held corporation to hold the assets to be donated. Dissolve the corporation and transfer all assets to the politician. I believe that financial disclosure laws would provide a legally valid record of asset transfer.
Donations in-kind. All you have to do is donate something that is either unique to your organization or is not fungible the way cash is, and the trustee will be unable to mask this donation with others

Theoretically, controlling the communications channel of money transfers might be enough to make knowledge of amounts unreliable, but I have no doubt that fully determined parties on both sides will quickly find ways of routing any system that would (given the huge amounts of money and power at stake) necessarily have its procedures codified into law.

At best, you introduce a little bit of inefficiency into the system. At worst, you enable huge levels of fraud within the trustee organization itself.

[spazattak]

This system is easily gamed. A side note here or there, strategically timed contributions for set amounts, etc. Any system that requires anonymity is a bad idea - it hides people's polical agenda(s).

Instead, what we should do is allow (perhaps limited?) personal contributions, but report it. Disallow organizational and corporate contributions. Individuals should be able to speak/contribute their minds. Period.

[Cheesesteak]

When I write out a check to Senator Schmoe's re-election campaign, what would I be writing it out to? Some random trust name that is not distinguishable as being for Schmoe?

Something has to distinguish that check as being for one campaign or another, and I'm not exactly going to be thrilled if I can't get some sort of proof that my guy got the money I sent. That proof can also be sent to the Senator, no?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I don't want to speak for the OP, but this "proof" stuff negates the whole point of anonymity. It's silly. If you're saying "I need to be able to show that I contributed or else I won't do it" the response would be "Fine. Don't contribute. This system is designed to have only anonymous contributions. If you need proof, then you can no longer contribute to political campaigns under this system."

This might toast your shorts, but that's the OP. If you want to argue that the OP is illegal, suggest which law is being broken. If you want to suggest that it would decrease campaign contributions overall, whch it would, then show why that's necessarily a bad thing. If you want to rail that it pisses you off, open a Pit thread. But don't argue that the OP is wrong because it's asking for anonymous political contributions --that's what it's doing. Show why it's wrong, if you can, not just that the idea offends you.

[Driver8]

Are all those going to be illegal as well?

No. I would imagine most of those suggestions would be unconstitutional. Only financial contributions made directly to the candidate's office would be illegal. Which illustrates just how useless the idea of making campaign contributions illegal would be. One would simply informally outsource campaign elements to separate entities.

I don't think there is an elegant solution to the problem of politicians pandering to special interests that isn't worse than the problem in the first place. I'd much rather have the influence out in the open, where people can make informed decisions about a candidate's influences. If the American people are willing to tolerate politician's who act outside of their interests because they were paid off by a specific company, then they get what they deserve.

[Cheesesteak]

It's not silly, the OP asked for objections, and this is mine. If I give my hard earned money to someone, I'd like some sort of expectation that they'd actually get it.

If nobody can prove that my money went to my politician's campaign, then my money could be re-directed to anyone's campaign without me ever knowing. It's a perfect breeding ground for corruption.

Millions going in, millions going out, and no paper trail. What could possibly go wrong with that?

[Driver8]

I don't want to speak for the OP, but this "proof" stuff negates the whole point of anonymity. It's silly. If you're saying "I need to be able to show that I contributed or else I won't do it" the response would be "Fine. Don't contribute. This system is designed to have only anonymous contributions. If you need proof, then you can no longer contribute to political campaigns under this system."

This might toast your shorts, but that's the OP. If you want to argue that the OP is illegal, suggest which law is being broken. If you want to suggest that it would decrease campaign contributions overall, whch it would, then show why that's necessarily a bad thing. If you want to rail that it pisses you off, open a Pit thread. But don't argue that the OP is wrong because it's asking for anonymous political contributions --that's what it's doing. Show why it's wrong, if you can, not just that the idea offends you.

That is fine, but there needs to be some formal mechanism for saying who you want the money to go to. Surely you would have a copy of this that you could show to the politician? A screenshot of the website where you clicked "Joe Schmoe"? Nothing at all? And who audits this blind trust, anyway?

Even if that wasn't an issue I have a feeling that an honor (ha!) system of sorts would develop. I don't think the economic benefit of cheating outweighs the economic benefit of paying off the politician. Even if individual line items are hard to reconcile I'd imagine if you were a lobbyist who regularly cheated politicians would eventually pick up the pattern. Say goodbye to whatever the lobbying company was proposing then! Not smart.

And even if that wasn't an issue you in effect have a similar system to where the direct campaign contributions are illegal. Since they're not effective they'll just outsource to companies who can accept money from whoever they want.

[Lemur866]

I don't want to speak for the OP, but this "proof" stuff negates the whole point of anonymity. It's silly. If you're saying "I need to be able to show that I contributed or else I won't do it" the response would be "Fine. Don't contribute. This system is designed to have only anonymous contributions. If you need proof, then you can no longer contribute to political campaigns under this system."

Yes, but how does a contributor know that the trustee isn't just taking the money and spending it on hookers and cocaine?

The trustee has to have an audit trail. If I write a check to the Sierra Club, I can see that the Sierra Club cashed my check. I can see how much each year that the Sierra Club gets in contributions. I can see what the Sierra Club chooses to spend that money on. And if I don't like it, I can refuse to contribute, or petition the officers of the Sierra Club to change their practices, or report them for fraud. And this is all accomplished by making the finances of the Sierra Club public and transparent. Any Sierra Club trustees that want to spend some of that money on hookers and cocaine are going to have to go to a lot of work to hide the missing money, and a little investigation by any interested individual can turn up discrepancies.

In the case of anonymous campaign contributions, how do you even know that your check was recieved? You can donate to the Sierra Club anonymously and get back the check cashed by the Sierra Club as your proof they got the money. If you get back a check cashed by Senator Bedfellow, then you have proof the Senator got the money. Only trouble is, you can take that cancelled check to your meeting with Senator Bedfellow as proof.

Anonymous donations only work if one of the parties wants to remain anonymous. If neither wants to remain anonymous, any anonymyzing scheme can be defeated by the parties. Regulations that depend on openness and transparency are fail-safe, regulations that depend on anonymity and secrecy are fail-deadly.

[jsc1953]

...giving a monetary donation is itself a political message - I'm not just expressing an opinion about candidate/issue/etc., I believe in it so strongly that I am going to give away my hard-earned money to help make it happen. "Put your money where your mouth is."

The proposal does nothing to prevent you from doing exactly that. Contribute to your heart's content to the candidate of your choice.

It's a perfect breeding ground for corruption.

And you can say this without a hint of irony?

[spazattak]

This is a bandaid solution anyway. It is just covering up the problem. The problem isn't individuals being able to contribute, its organizations being able to contribute.

[jsc1953]

This is a bandaid solution anyway. It is just covering up the problem. The problem isn't individuals being able to contribute, its organizations being able to contribute.

Ah, but that might be an indirect benefit of the bandaid. Would organizations contribute at all, if their contributions were truly anonymous?

But I think lemur raised an insurmountable objection -- anonymity is, I believe, a brilliant solution -- but it can only be maintained if at least one of the parties wants to remain anonymous.

[spazattak]

How about this:

Unlimited individual contributions provided

The contributor is a registered voter
The contributor can only donate to (indivuals that will appear on their ballot)/(registered candidates for their local elections)
Campaign money cannot be transfered to other candidates - unspent funds get pro-rated back to contributors or go to whatever district the candidate was running in.


I think this would solve alot of the political sponsorship problems.

[jsc1953]

How about this:

Unlimited individual contributions provided
[list]
The contributor is a registered voter
The contributor can only donate to (indivuals that will appear on their ballot)/(registered candidates for their local elections)
....

Which would effectively mean no limits on individual contributions to presidential candidates.

Are there any constitutional protections on corporate contributions? Are they entitled to 'free speech'? (And what kind of statement is it making when an organization contributes to both candidates (other than ensuring that they have access to the winner, of course.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I don't want to be egotistical or anything, but in the old thread I referenced (post # 10), many of these issues were discussed at length, so if you'd take a look, I think you'll see where some of this discussion could be heading.

[Ravenman]

In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=293358&) I raised a similar question, only to have him (and Ravenman, and a few others) fail to get some of the points I was trying to raise, which resemble some of yours.Actually, I understood your points just fine. The points, however, were based upon a facile understanding of the relationship between politicians and contributors.

In summary, here are the problems with requiring anonymous contributions to political campaigns.

1. It will not instill mistrust between politicians and contributors. Midwestern congressmen aren't big supporters of the Cattlemen's Association simply because the Cattlemen contibute big money to Midwestern congressmen. The two groups have good relations because both see farm issues the same way, they work with each other on many issues, and trust is built up through that working relationship, of which campaign contributions are but one among many facets. The amibiguity of whether the Cattlemen may or may not have contributed some money to the campaign would not eliminate the trust built up through the Cattlemen mobilizing their membership to support Congressman XYZ, nor does it affect the trust of the membership of the Cattlemen that Congressman XYZ does a good job of representing their interests.

2. It is in the best interest of lobbyists to publicize what they are doing. The system will be gamed, because contributors will still make it known that they contributed to politicians who favor their viewpoint, because it makes the lobbyists clients or membership happy. The rank and file of unions want the unions to give money to politicians who support union causes, and therefore unions have a strong incentive to tell their members that the group is doing what the members want it to do.

3. Lobbyists have little to no incentive to go around lying to politicians about how much they gave in campaign contributions. Being caught in a lie ("I gave your campaign $5,000," when they actually didn't) would eliminate all trust by any politican in that organization. It would also show to the membership of the lobbying organization that the lobbyists are liars and might not be working in the best interests of the membership.

4. There is a benefit to the public knowing who is contributing to particular congressmen. Look at all the politicians who took money from Jack Abramoff. If there were an anonymous system, the public wouldn't know that Senator ABC was taking tainted money. There's a public interest in maintaining a transparent system.

In my mind, the only way to reduce the influence of money in politics is to create a public funding system for elections, probably with campaign spending limits. Pretty much anything short of that won't actually do anything.

[spazattak]

Which would effectively mean no limits on individual contributions to presidential candidates.

and? The president is only a third of our government.


Are there any constitutional protections on corporate contributions? Are they entitled to 'free speech'? (And what kind of statement is it making when an organization contributes to both candidates (other than ensuring that they have access to the winner, of course.)
IMO, no. As far as case law, I have no idea, but I would argue that organizations/corporations aren't individuals. We want individual personal freedoms. As soon as you give groups of people the same rights as individuals, you skew the playing field against the individual.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Actually, I understood your points just fine. The points, however, were based upon a facile understanding of the relationship between politicians and contributors
[...]
4. There is a benefit to the public knowing who is contributing to particular congressmen. Look at all the politicians who took money from Jack Abramoff. If there were an anonymous system, the public wouldn't know that Senator ABC was taking tainted money. There's a public interest in maintaining a transparent system.

In my mind, the only way to reduce the influence of money in politics is to create a public funding system for elections, probably with campaign spending limits. Pretty much anything short of that won't actually do anything.

Oh, boy. Let me focus on your 4th point alone here. Senator ABC wouldn't be ABLE to take money,tainted or untainted, because ANY money he took outside of the Commission I'm suggesting as a clearing hourse would be illegal. "Do you have campaign contributions? Did you get them from the Campaign Commission?" If you answer "No," you go to jail. End of story. No trail needed, no complex song and dance. Produce a receipt from the Campiagn Commission or do time. Very simple. I don;t think you'd see many Abramoffs under such a system.

[Ravenman]

Politicians taking money directly from people is illegal today. Political contributions have to be directed to a campaign committee, which then must make quarterly filings with the FEC.

Abramoff directed tainted money to campaign committees. He could have just as easily directed tainted money to a blind campaign trust. The only difference is that the public would then have no idea which candidates campaign trusts took money from a shady dealer like Abramoff.

Nor would "good" candidates be able to reject contributions from unsavory people, whether it be a political player like Abramoff or from other objectionable sources like, say, the NAMBLA PAC. Most politicians wouldn't want to take any money from an organization that advocates child molestation as a matter of moral principle.

Why shouldn't politicians have an opportunity to return contributions from people or causes that they despise? How can that possibly be accomplished if the politician is prohibited from knowing who is giving him money?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Politicians taking money directly from people is illegal today. Political contributions have to be directed to a campaign committee, which then must make quarterly filings with the FEC.

Abramoff directed tainted money to campaign committees. He could have just as easily directed tainted money to a blind campaign trust. The only difference is that the public would then have no idea which candidates campaign trusts took money from a shady dealer like Abramoff.

Nor would "good" candidates be able to reject contributions from unsavory people, whether it be a political player like Abramoff or from other objectionable sources like, say, the NAMBLA PAC. Most politicians wouldn't want to take any money from an organization that advocates child molestation as a matter of moral principle.

Why shouldn't politicians have an opportunity to return contributions from people or causes that they despise? How can that possibly be accomplished if the politician is prohibited from knowing who is giving him money?\\


If he gets no credit for donating money, why would he do it?

[Ravenman]

If he gets no credit for donating money, why would he do it?There are many reasons why lobbyists donate money. Reread my post #34, which explains some of them.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Let me also respond to your other points (4 was easiest, but I want to clarify some points, in the hope that I simply haven't made my positions clear previously.)


1. It will not instill mistrust between politicians and contributors. Midwestern congressmen aren't big supporters of the Cattlemen's Association simply because the Cattlemen contibute big money to Midwestern congressmen. The two groups have good relations because both see farm issues the same way, they work with each other on many issues, and trust is built up through that working relationship, of which campaign contributions are but one among many facets. The amibiguity of whether the Cattlemen may or may not have contributed some money to the campaign would not eliminate the trust built up through the Cattlemen mobilizing their membership to support Congressman XYZ, nor does it affect the trust of the membership of the Cattlemen that Congressman XYZ does a good job of representing their interests..

This sounds like a contribution that the Commission is designed to encourage. The Cattlemen would continue to contribute to Congressman XYZ for legitimate reasons, and he would vote the way he does because he thinks it's the right way to vote. No problem there.

2. It is in the best interest of lobbyists to publicize what they are doing. The system will be gamed, because contributors will still make it known that they contributed to politicians who favor their viewpoint, because it makes the lobbyists clients or membership happy. The rank and file of unions want the unions to give money to politicians who support union causes, and therefore unions have a strong incentive to tell their members that the group is doing what the members want it to do.
Lobbyists can say whatever they want. They''ll just have zero proof. There's a lot of liars out there, you know.
. 3. Lobbyists have little to no incentive to go around lying to politicians about how much they gave in campaign contributions. Being caught in a lie ("I gave your campaign $5,000," when they actually didn't) would eliminate all trust by any politican in that organization. It would also show to the membership of the lobbying organization that the lobbyists are liars and might not be working in the best interests of the membership.So this would a disincentive to lie. I have no problem with that, either. Eventually, you'd have people contributing to campaigns whose espoused aims they approve of, with no hope of having their contributions known to the pols, not for any quid pro quo.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

As before, we seem to be going round and round here. I'll drop out for a while, hoping someone else can clear this up for you, but I'll keep reading this thread. It seems to me that I think what I'm saying is clear enough, and so do you, but we don;t seem to be hearing each other.

[Mr. Moto]

Funny you should raise this question now that Mr. Moto has announced he's leaving. In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=293358&) I raised a similar question, only to have him (and Ravenman, and a few others) fail to get some of the points I was trying to raise, which resemble some of yours. Good Luck!

For the record, I got your points just fine. You just refused to see that my objections to your proposed plan were quite reasonable ones.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

And still do.

But I'm curious if other principles in this discussion might not be able to get a clue as to what the other is saying. So far you and I (and Ravenman) seem to put the kibosh on this topic, for some curious reason, but I have faith that other folks will be able to have a great debate, or even a Great Debate, on the topic. We seem to be talented only at having a Really Frustrating Debate.

[Ravenman]

Perhaps you can address my question of why politicians should have no right of refusal to take campaign contributions from people or organizations they do not like. An anonymous donor system would eliminate the ability of politicians to do so.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Sure. If I have no idea that the KKK is contributing to my campaign, and so it's impossible that I could be beholden to the KKK, what possible harm is there in accepting their money? I'm going to vote the way I want to, and any KKK moneys I receive that I put to uses contrary to KKK goals (i.e., every penny) give them zero access or influence on me.

[Cheesesteak]

Karl Rove has just announced the opening of the Ronald Reagan Memorial Republican Campaign Contribution Clearing House.

The RRMRCCCH provides guaranteed transmittal of your campaign contribution to the US Gov't Clearing House for the Republican candidate of your choice. For a mere $10 processing charge, you receive a certified document detailing the exact amount of your contribution and the Republican candidate it went to. We are audited by all four of the Big Four auditors, so you (and the candidate) can be sure the contribution is valid. We are not associated in any way with any campaigns, and do not make any donations of our own, we are truly just a processer of YOUR Republican donation.

Don't be hampered by some hippie's attempt to prevent you from influencing the Republican candidate of your choice, call the RRMRCCCH today!

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

I don't get it Cheesesteak. Under pseudo's rules such a group/practice would obviously be outlawed.

[Cheesesteak]

Why would it be illegal? They're just forwarding your check to the official clearing house for you, and providing you with proof they did it. It's a simple service, write a letter on your behalf, mail it with your check to the clearing house, send you confirmation. I can't hire someone to write letters and mail stuff for me?

Anyway, contributions are "anonymous" so you can't prove that this company sent anything at all.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I think we could specify that funds must be donated directly from the donor to the Commission without a middleman. Any organization that fronts for donors would be have its checks returned, and any organization that repeatedly tries to act in such a way will have its officers arrested for violating the new campaign laws. I don't think you wll see too much of this

It's fairly amazing to me that people are so hostile to this idea that they're twisting themselves into pretzels devising ways to get around it that could be easily accounted for in the new statute.

[Captain Amazing]

I don't get it Cheesesteak. Under pseudo's rules such a group/practice would obviously be outlawed.
What would be illegal about it under pseudo's rules? The RRMRCCCH is giving the money to the Commission, and giving anonymously. If the RRMRCCCH wants to list who's donating money to them, what's illegal about that?

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Ah, I see.

I guess it would be made illegal because it's a transparent attempt to get around the new rules.

I'm sure there are ways to game the system as it has been proposed so far, yours is one of those ways. But that doesn't make the system a bad idea in principle does it? You just need to build in safeguards to the various methods of attack as they come to light.

My first thought on how to protect the system from your attack would be to make it possible for the donor (only, no proxies of any kind) to take the donation back up to a few months later by applying direct to the agency running the show. You could also introduce a variable delay between the cash getting into the official clearing fund and being paid out to the politicians' campaign funds. The payments would also be lumped together into varying random amounts.

Your certificate from RRMRCCCH is now not such good proof to the politician in question that he has or will receive any cash from you.

I'm not an american so this is just an intellectual exercise for me, but it's an interesting one to be sure. Here in the UK we have our own issues with political financing.

[Cheesesteak]

Nobody is fronting for anyone, they're processing a document for a fee. I take your check, write a letter asking for the check to be applied to candidate X, per your instructions, and mail the letter with the check to the clearing house. There's no difference between that and a rich guy asking his personal secretary to do the exact same thing, except anyone can use it, and get proof the document was processed. The RRMRCCCH need not deposit the contributors check, nor will their name be on the check, or any other document sent to the US clearing house.

There's a reason people here are going the pretzel route. There will be a demand for this to be non-anonymous, and people WILL try and find a way to game the system. You seem to think that everyone will just sigh and meekly go along with the new way of contributing. I'm not personally hostile to the idea, but I'm willing to recognize that people who are intimately involved with this stuff today are going to be hostile and will use great imagination in getting around these rules that handcuff them.

If this sort of thing gets instituted, it will be a constant battle between the rules and the guys gaming the rules. Usually, the rules are a few steps behind the gamers.

[Ravenman]

Actually, there are already campaign finance laws that relate to bundling of campaign contributions. I am fairly sure that RRMRCCCH's activities would not be legal under current laws, because that type of bundling is a vehicle for disguising the source of the contributions. (Which is actually the debate at hand, innit?)

[Ravenman]

Sorry, I misspoke. Bundling is a controversial tactic, but not yet illegal. It is a high priority for those who wish to push campaign finance reform, such as the Russ Feingold types, for the same reasons stated.

[Mr. Moto]

It's fairly amazing to me that people are so hostile to this idea that they're twisting themselves into pretzels devising ways to get around it that could be easily accounted for in the new statute.

And if enough people are hostile to the idea, it won't be a statute at all. It'll just be a lame idea on a message board.

[Lemur866]

Look, what's the purpose of making campaign contributions anonymous. So that lawmakers won't know the identity of their big contributors, and therefore be inclined to do special favors for them.

The whole point of the pretzel-twisting is to show that anonymity can only succeed if the anonymous party wants it to succeed. And in this case, the contributor has no interest in remaining anonymous, and the lawmaker has no interest not knowing the identity of his backers.

What's to stop someone from calling a press conference, writing a million dollar check to Senator Bedfellow on camera, and dropping the check in the mail? What's to stop the lobbyist from visiting Senator Bedfellow, writing out the check and dropping it in the mail while Senator Bedfellow (or one of his trusted staffers) watches?

Of course the little guys who give $100 to their favorite politician's re-election campaign aren't going to bother de-anonymizing their contributions. But the big contributors, the very ones whose large contributions get them access today, would have a reason to break anonymity. And so we have a system where unproblematic contributions are anonymous, while the problematic ones aren't, because there are 5000 dead easy ways to break it.

The proposal is worse than useless, because not only does it NOT keep problematic contributions anonymous, it keeps problematic contributions secret from the public! Now Senator Bedfellow knows that his main backers are the Bavarian Illuminati, but the public doesn't. This proposal would be a lobbyist's wet dream, since now they can contribute all they want without that pesky public scrutiny.