So I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the proposed constitutional amendments to reign in campaign finance spending. I’ve heard there were issues with them but I didn’t take them seriously because it’s so difficult to amend the constitution that any partisan objection (and there is plenty to shutting off the flow of Big Money) spells doom for any proposal. But then I was thinking about abortion. There is no chance of legislation to outlaw it and yet it remains a big issue. The fact that it can’t and doesn’t get solved is beneficial to conservative politicians since it’s an issue that doesn’t go away. Can a campaign finance amendment do the same thing for populist politicians?
I’m thinking that it might if supporters could unite behind a single, simple amendment and then challenge politicians to support it. If Democrats start taking the pledge this pressures other Dems to do the same a la Grover Norquist and the GOP. Once the Democratic Party unites behind the pledge they can use it as a club against Republican opponents not only for federal office but for state governorships and legislatures as well since it’s a state and federal issue.
But what is the right amendment? I think something along these lines:
**American citizens have the right to spend money on elections and partisan activity. Each individual may spend or donate as much as a dedicated median income individual might afford each year as determined by Congress. No other private money shall be spent or donated. Public funds shall be made available for non-incumbents who petition with the valid signatures of a reasonable fraction of the total number of constituents of that office.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.**
That’s not what you would call a final proposal, of course. I’ve only just started thinking about this. Let me know of any flaws you see but I think that’s at least a start to making a nice balance. It limits campaign/party building money to something most people could afford if they really really cared. But it doesn’t seek to fully eliminate the advantage of deep pockets. The wealthy still have the advantage in that they can afford that much without breaking a sweat and can still spend unlimited amounts on issue advocacy so long as it doesn’t support any particular candidate or political party.
Are you interested in restricting donations in kind? Suppose some organization wanted to go door to door canvassing for some candidate, or cold calling, or doing a push poll, instead of giving the money directly. Is that OK? Can you spend your own money on your own campaign?
And, as I usually point out, this kind of thing gives a huge advantage to the incumbent, who does not have to spend his own money to get publicity and air time.
I think campaign finance reform is a very important issue, but is there really widespread concern? Will this be a “wedge” issue with even a fraction of the impact of guns, homosexuality, or abortion? Since taxpayer-funding for campaigns are part of many proposals, I’m afraid anti-tax sentiment might just cause the wedge to backfire.
Certainly candidates could spend money on their own campaigns. I would expect every candidate to spend their entire limit on themselves. Donations in kind is what we want to encourage so long as it’s the kind of donation most everyone can afford. We want to encourage people to become engaged and to be able to make a difference. At the same time we are looking to level the playing field a bit so that the efforts of average individuals aren’t swamped by the big spenders. So if you get volunteers to cold call for you, great. But you can’t just hire people to do it with unregulated funds.
I’m familiar with this objection. I’m proposing we publicly fund challengers but not incumbents.
Campaigns must have funding. If public moneys are the entire campaign chest and not just a supplement then it really really really matters how you qualify. I’m not inclined to put that much trust in getting the rules to fit every single case. I’d rather err on the side of caution in giving non-qualifiers some chance of winning. Also what about regulating the money donated directly to political parties? That’s a lot of potential influence to be sold right there.
I am not sure how this can be limited to what everyone can afford. I am talking about large organizations using their already-existing resources - phone banks, membership lists, volunteers - on behalf of a political campaign. What kind of limits are you going to impose on them, if any?
I still don’t understand.
Suppose I am the head of some trade group, and I want candidate X to be elected. Can I set up a committee to campaign for them? Can I hire pollsters and run focus groups? Or suppose I am filthy rich candidate Y - can I spend ten million on my own campaign?
Do the incumbents have to raise their own election funds?
We do that already. That’s the distinction between soft and hard contributions. You can only donate so much directly to a campaign, but you can give much more to a party. Are you saying you would outlaw things like Emily’s List? Would you forbid the teacher’s unions in Wisconsin from working on Walker’s recall?
The devil in this is always in the details. Not to mention what was mentioned in Freakonomics, who contend that the amount spent is not very closely correlated with winning elections.
Organizations aren’t citizens so they can’t spend their own money on elections but they can take donations from citizens for that purpose. Volunteers are free to volunteer; free=no problemo being the guideline. Incidental costs hopefully being ignored. Your gas driving around to canvass neighborhoods is negligible but your ticket to fly somewhere else for that purpose might have to come out of your limit. Your home telephone bill where you cold call people, fine. But a call center? I hadn’t considered election infrastructure being valuable from election to election. This sounds like it could well be far too complicated far too quickly. I see why BG likes the simplicity of just regulating commercials.
You and everyone else can only spend up to the limit, a set amount per year on all electoral spending. So sure you can set up a campaign committee. Pollsters and everyone else would have to be paid in regulated money only.
Yes. Well, everyone does. Public monies being seen as a supplement to counter the advantages of incumbency. The issue there being that given the small amounts each donor can give that means expensive elections would require a lot of retail fundraising. There are downsides to that, as in less time available for duty in committee or on the floor, but it is face time for constituents. There is something to be said for getting people out of Washington.
My quote was in reference to BrainGlutton’s proposal. I was differentiating our ideas for the contrast. (I’m not actually quite sure where he stands on contributions to parties.) Organizations like those you mention would seem ideally placed to steer money where it helps the most.
I’m not familiar with that argument. But yes the details. Obviously I’ve very rough ideas. Thanks for helping me punch it into shape. I’ll think it over. It was bad timing on my part to start this thread. I’ll be out of town for the weekend after tonite. I’m just glad the thread didn’t plummet to the bottom with no replies.
From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):
They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.
From the same book, pp. 311-313:
“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.
Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.
We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system. Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).
You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform
Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).
[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).
We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue. Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).
Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate? Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).
The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today. George Washington Plunkett (1905).
Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune. James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).
European broadcasters generally differentiate between “party political” (“vote for me!”) broadcasts and ministerial (“the government is doing X”) ones. There are very strict requirements about what can be said in the latter.
The staggered nature of federal elections might make that trickier, though.
Senator Tom Udall has a well worded campaign finance amendment. It allows Congress to regulate donations to federal candidates and spending by, for, and against them while specifically not limiting freedom of the press. The bill gives states the same power for state elections. According to Politico this will come to a vote in the Senate this year.
This is just what the Democrats need. If they can unite behind this clear and concise amendment they will have their wedge issue to deploy against the GOP this fall and in subsequent elections.
This kind of thing is actually ridiculously easy to attack. I read the Udall amendment, it contains no press protections, because if it did, then it would protect the Koch Bros press rights.
There is no way to do this without giving the government broad censorship powers over political speech.
The democrats think they have a wedge issue. Problem is, the ACLU, the NRA, the Sierra Club, unions, everyone, is going to campaign hard against this amendment, because this amendment purports to silence them, one and all.
I don’t see why you would think that. The bill doesn’t silence anyone it merely gives Congress the right to regulate campaign spending. Issue advocacy is not mentioned only electioneering. The third section states, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” That seems like press protection to me though I don’t see what that has to do with either Koch Bro. They aren’t journalists or anything.