A Modest Proposal of Campaign Finance Reform

Great Debates
1

Okay. Politicians often cite the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo as applying First Amendment protection to campaign contributions and expenditures. According to this perspective, any proposed revisions of campaign finance which restrict an individual’s ability to give are implicitly unconstitutional. Got it so far?

The thing is, the opinion in Buckley said that while restricting the amount a candidate spends on his campaign was an unconstitutional limitation on their freedom of speech, it was proper to limit the amount donated to campaigns, in order to remove corruption or “the appearance of corruption” from the democratic process. Now, we all know that the two rationales have somewhat melded together in the eyes of donors today–loopholes were found in the contribution limits (soft money, bundling, issue advocacy), and those loopholes are defended strenuously on free speech grounds (and have been upheld by the Rehnquist court), even though that was explicitly not what Buckley says.

Anyway, when “the appearance of corruption” is brought up, both candidates and donors swear that contributions have no undue influence on future policy considerations (no quid for the quo), that donors can in no way buy a candidate, and that large contributions are made simply because the donor thinks the candidate has views which represent their interests, in the classically democratic fashion.

All of this can be disputed–numerous instances of pork barrel contracts, patronage, and invaluable access time to office holders can be traced back to contributions in a relatively straightforward causality. In many observers’ opinions–and in the eyes of the Court which decided Buckley–such influence on the political system makes a mockery of democracy.

The solution? Take the donors at their word. If all they’re doing is contributing to a like-minded office-seeker, and not expecting any favors in return, then surely it wouldn’t harm anything if their donations were made anonymous. As long as the money got there, right? Here’s what you do: require that all political contributions be made through a non-partisan government clearing-house. Basically, the clearing-house would launder the money, doling out to each candidate the amount of donations received every week or so–without telling them the names of the donors. Individuals can donate as much as they want, but the candidates won’t know who to “thank”–there’d be no recognition, and no suggestion of impropriety.

Here’s the tricky part: in order to make this really work, and to ensure as much as possible that political contributions are in no way contingent upon reciprocal favors, the government would have to require that the records of the clearing-house be sealed, and subject to protection against scrutiny in the same way as attorney-client, doctor-patient, or spousal privilege.

Of course, what’s to stop a donor from simply telling a politician, “Hey Frank, you know that $100,000 that cleared your account last week? That was from me.” First, raw contribution numbers could be made public every week–“the Bush campaign received $210,000 this week.” If the donor names were kept confidential, anyone could claim to have donated all or part of that money. This would muddy the waters, perhaps to the extent that the flow of money into politics would slow to a trickle, as donors worried about others taking credit for their contributions. But wait–couldn’t donors just show a copy of their check to the candidate, proving that they’d made the contribution? Not if such circumventing of the clearing-house was rendered illegal, using the clear and present danger standard set down by Oliver Wendell Holmes. An extreme remedy would be to apply strict penalties to anyone claiming to have donated over a certain amount, on the basis that recognition for large contributions posed a potential threat to the health of the republic.

Anyway, that’s my Black Box model of campaign finance reform. I’d appreciate considered responses. (I know you libertarians out there are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of additional government regulation, but this seems the simplest way of addressing the problem of money’s pernicious influence on politics, while giving the benefit of the doubt to all those people and corporations out there who claim altruism while donating tens of thousands of dollars to both parties at the same time.)

2

From the OP I was hoping there’d be a suggestion we start eating political candidates.

Damn.

3

Naw, I’m not that Swiftian…

4

At first glance it seems a very sound idea. Note also that since the check would be written to the clearing house, you could show a canceled check to a dozen politicians and say you made it to their campaign - none would have any particular reason to believe you.

Of course, no politician will ever vote for this, so it will probably never happen. I will think further on this and see if I can think of any real problems other than in its implementation…

5

You lost me there, Cooper. Why would no politician ever vote for this? It seems pretty win-win for the politicians: get money for re-election, don’t have to show gratitude to anyone in particular. But maybe you’re thinking of some aspect I missing…

6

I just thought of a potential problem … allegations that the clearinghouse firm was secretly redirecting money to candidates they liked. I’m sure it wouldn’t be too common, but these allegations could make everybody nervous with no really good way to check into them.

So you could reveal who donated what to whom ten years after the fact, throwing all the crooked accountants in jail at that time. This would erode the anonymity somewhat, but 10 years is a long time to stay grateful.
“Hey Congressman Boris, you’ve gotta vote our way. We donated $10,000 to your campaign in 1990!”
“What, you mean the time I ran for County Coroner and lost by twenty percentage points?”

7

But that’s just the thing. There would be no money for re-election. Do you think these huge corporations are feeding politicians money out of sheer generousity?

I am the user formerly known as puffington.

8

I just watched one of the PBS commentary shows (one of the ones where several reporters sit at a table discussing the week’s political news), and the folks in it were discussing the Republican California primary. Apparently a private individual generated and ran a Pro-Bush / anti-McCain $2 million tv ad campaign. It was a private individual spending private money, so was apparently beyond the scope of current campaign financing laws - and yet its cost rivaled what all of the official campaigns were spending.

Just cusious here - how would your proposal affect incidents like this?

9

First, practicality issues. I’d agree with Cooper and neutron star–in today’s political climate, it’s not likely that many officeholders would throw their support behind a proposal likely to stem the flow of money into campaign coffers. However, if an idea like this got grassroots support and media attention–both of which are still extremely difficult to do–I’d be quite interested to see the grounds on which politicians opposed Black Box reform. It would be difficult to do without seeming disingenuous–“No, campaign contributions can’t buy influence, but I still need to know who my donors are! Um, so I can call 'em up and thank 'em. Common courtesy.”

That said, there are major problems in implementation. For example, the free speech issues in telling someone that it’s illegal to claim that they’ve donated $10,000, whether or not it’s true. Personally, I liken it to restrictions on speech that threatens the life of the president…but it’d be a tough sell, especially since it doesn’t seem as if most people believe that money in politics is so dangerous as to warrant extreme measures. (I had an argument with a friend of mine–very smart, graduated from an excellent university–in which I couldn’t convince him that campaign finance reform was anything more than a “political” issue used by politicians for election, with no relevance to the real world.)

I do think, practicality aside, that this is an idea which slices the Gordian knot of campaign finance–allowing the liberty to contribute under the aegis of free speech, while denying the necessity of being recognized for those contributions.

Cooper, you brought up an interesting point about the donors writing checks to the clearing-house rather than the candidates themselves. I hadn’t thought about that, and it does make anonymity of contributions more feasible. But Boris’s objection is a good one–steps would need to be taken to assure the objectivity of the clearing-house. Also, I currently work for the foundation of a university, through which all donations to that university are disbursed. It’s difficult enough to get people to remember to make out their checks to the foundation rather than, say, the English department–I don’t think people would embrace the idea of turning their money over to “Black Box Clearing-house” in the expectation that it’d get where it needed to go. If, on the other hand, they explicitly designated their donations to the candidates of their choice, while sending those checks to the clearing-house, it might quell some concerns.

WillGolfForFood says:

Good question. That’s the issue advocacy/independent expenditure campaigns I referred to earlier, currently legal. My first inclination would be that there’d be no way to limit those with the clearing-house, but I need to think about it. Anyone else? I’ll be back with my opinion later–right now, I’ve got Duke-Carolina to watch. :slight_smile:

10

I support this as long as I get to run the clearing house.

I like the no record/no audit thing.

I promise not to keep any of the money for myself. I also promise not to deprive campaigns I disagree of from their funds and divert them to candidates I do agree with.
The best way to deal with this in our society is the system Keyes supports.

Unlimited donations from individuals. No donations from entities or anyone who does not have a vote.

Immediate (2 day?) disclosure of all donations. From who, to whom.

Let every American control their property as they see fit. Minimize government invovlement. Let people be informed of who is giving what.

11

I never said there’d be no record or no audit. Obviously, there’d have to be stringent regulation of the clearing-house to ensure that the money was properly designated. Like I said, I work at a university foundation–there are lots of checks you can institute in the donating process to guard against corruption.

Not necessarily a bad idea, but I’ve got two questions. Since you support a plan which ostensibly eliminates corporate/PAC/labor contributions, it seems like you believe that money can have negative effects on politics. Is that the case? If so, do you believe that the corrupting influence of campaign contributions is limited only to those contributions given by organizations? Can’t the head of a chemical plant in Ohio give $20,000 out of her own pocket in exchange for relaxed regulation, tax breaks, or other favors?

Fair enough, and I understand your point. But why is it necessary that a candidate know who’s given him money?

I wouldn’t be averse to stipulating that the Black Box system would allow unlimited donations from individuals, and no donations from organizations. So how does it hurt that the politicians not know where the money comes from, as long as it gets there properly?

12

Well, first off, why can’t I tell people what I gave and to who?

If your system means I can say anything, but it would just be impossible to confirm it, then how are you going to disclose to the public who gave what?

Who cares if the chemical plant owner gives $2,000,000 to get tax breaks.

The great hing about this system is we WILL know who cares. If a whole lot of people care, then the guy will not get elected.

All the other candidate has to do is point out the donation to everyone and then show the tax cuts. If it bothers people then the guy will get thrown out of office next election time.

I don’t neccessarily think that money corrupts campaigns, as much as I think they way it is given corrupts them.

Unions for example. We constantly hear the Right complaining about unions taking money out of paychecks to donate to politicians.

We always hear the left complaining about the NRA controlling congress. If the people want their money to go support someone, or some issue, then let a PERSON donate to it.

(but if you think you can get that black box thng passed, give me a call :slight_smile: )

13

Under my system, you could, if you gave less than, say, $1,000. Otherwise, if the candidates don’t know who to thank, then they won’t know who to thank, if you get my drift.

You’re not. Like I said in the OP, clearing-house records would be granted the kind of protection from scrutiny that is currently held by attorney-client relations. It’s illegal to tell someone you’re going to kill the president because such a statement constitutes a threat to the health of the republic; the Supreme Court held in Buckley that the “appearance of corruption” in campaign contributions constitutes a similar threat–I think it’s reasonable to make disclosure of contributions illegal as well.

That being said, allowing for an opening of the donor records after a certain period of years wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, either. But I repeat my thesis: politicians can’t reward their contributors with pork barrel contracts and the like if they don’t know who their contributors are.

Apparently not you. :slight_smile: I happen to think it’s a subversion of the democratic process, and leads to popular disaffection with the political system.

In a perfect world, yeah, people would be sufficiently informed about such things, and sufficiently bothered that they’d search for a candidate who didn’t give “favors.” But 1)campaign finance abuses don’t really get covered by the news media, as it’s a dry subject that doesn’t lend itself to soundbite coverage, 2)the link between a large contribution and subsequent influence isn’t always discrete, and 3)if both candidates give tax breaks to big donors, or rely heavily upon corporate money, you’re hardly going to see one of them pointing out the indiscretions of the other to the public. Polls have shown–and I’ll provide a cite if you want–that a majority of people are concerned about the effect of money on politics, and yet incumbents are getting re-elected in record numbers (something like 97 percent in the 1998 election). Clearly people aren’t throwing their representatives out of office come election time–what they are doing, however, is exercising their right not to vote (and don’t let’s get started down that path, you know what I mean grin), which is a powerful sign of disaffection itself.

So you only have a problem when it’s a group doing the donating? The NRA is a classic example of the mobilization of interests to pursue common policy goals–if each member has agreed to join, what’s different about the group making contributions, as compared to each of its members individually? This is not to say that I condone the influence of lobbyists and PACs on Washington, just that it seems to be a separate issue.

I don’t know if I can get it passed. :slight_smile: That’s why I want y’all to find all the flaws in the system, before I compose a position paper and start using some connections to push for it. Anyone interested in helping out, feel free to drop me an e-mail.

14

Ok,

Well then here are my three biggest problems with this proposal.

  1. I don’t trust the black box company. I don’t care what audits you have, there are just too many examples of people diverting money and corruption in organizations that do not see the light of day.

Two. We take two different approaches to problems. You want a secret government agency that will by it’s position become super powerful. I wasnt to throw light onto the whole situation. I want to see the responsibility given to the people. We live in a Republic, we can not just dismiss the individual because we don’t trust them. That is hallmark of a dictatorship.

Three. I think the bottom line problem is non-disclosure. Any system that does not disclose who is paying for it will not empower the people.

I only picked the NRA because I didn’t want to be subjective and attack only one side of the problem. I happen to think the NA does a great job of representing it’s members.

The problem is that it is still a lobby and they have to play the dirty little game of politics just like everyone else does.

With any proposal of campaign reform, I think a two term, term limit would help. Of course we would need a Constitutional amendment for this.

15

Actually, I do care about the Chemical plant owner buying a tax break. We just disagree on how to deal with it. You and me don’t get to decide what is right and wrong. The voters do.

If the voters don’t care, then you and I can not just go and make a system that circumvents the voters.

I don’t rememeber polls being mentioned anywhere in the process of running this country. Personally I hate polls. I’m always invovled in the 2nd Amendment threads, and I can tell you, there are always polls and numbers that both sides use.

Take it to the voting booth.

If someone is disaffected, then they need to get motivated. Taking away the rights of people who ARE involved to reach those who ARE NOT, is shooting yourself in the foot.