Yes, this is the solution that is favored by those who would like (or at least don’t seem to mind) financial power to result in power over other people’s lives to an even greater extent than it does now.
Note, however, that those advocating a less powerful government don’t seem to want it to be less powerful in the ways that help rich folks…enforcing contracts, providing protection of property, … Just in the ways that might be used to help the less advantaged.
There is one point about corporations that hasn’t been made explicitly here. (Well, I think RTFirefly has basically said it but it seems to have blown by many posters people.) — Corporations are entities that are granted certain legal rights…like the limited liability of the owners. (I’m sure people more expert in corporate law can cite others.) So, it is not unreasonable that in return for these legal rights, they also should be treated differently in regards to other legal things. (And, there is precedence for this in other areas. For example, there are certain things that tax-exempt groups cannot do in order to keep their tax exempt status, which is why donations to groups like the Sierra Club and the ACLU are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions.)
Hey, no one is responding to my suggested alteration to RTFirefly’s idea.
How about candidates are all given equal parcels of free air time. Individual campaign contributions limited to $500 a person. And no organization of any sort can contribute money to a candidates campaign. (No buying of votes.)
Corporations and other organizations are free of course to have their “voices heard” by talking not paying.
BTW, RTFirefly, would this idea require a constitutional amendment?
One way to reduce campaign contributions would be to do away with the direct election of Senators. This would throw power back to the state legislature, and put the focus back on local elections, which are cheaper to run.
Another possibility would be to reduce the size of Congressional Districts, this would increase bureaucracy in DC, but would again make politics more local. Ready with respect to publicly funded campaigns, a questions does every candidate get equal time? Even the Greens and the Libertarians and Socialists and Communists and Wako Fringe Group X?
I think you underestimate the role of organizations. There are high finding fees associated with getting knowledge about candidates. People who work full time do not have the time to research every race across the country to find people who think the way they do. Nevertheless, they want to help those candidates whose views match their own. Joining with a group of like minded people allows them to give money without having to do all the work themselves. I am afraid that without such groups the difficulty that challengers have in overcoming incumbency would become even higher than it is today.
air time should be based on demonstrated support. Just like getting your name on a ballot, you have to show a certain level of support through petitions.
I can’t think of any other method that is fair. If a Wako fringe group gets enough valid signatures, they should be heard.
All candidates that convince a certain level of voters to sign a petition in their support, are then entered into a level playing field for campaigning.
Each such candidate is given an equal share of broadcast air time. They could each be given an equal size section on a central campaign website that could track issue positions, keep video messages, etc.
The amount of money a candidate is able to accumulate in his campaign should be made as irrelevant as possible to whether or not he or she is elected. All qualified candidates should get equal exposure to the public.
The only factor that should determine a voter’s decision should be a comparison of candidates positions, character, etc. Not which candidate flooded the airways more with their name and attack ads on others.
So any person or organization who wants to support like minded candidates, must do so in non monetary ways. No money can be given to campaigns beyond the $500 individual limits. If a right or left wing organization wants to support a candidate, it will have to get people to listen to them by talking about issues that matter. If it wants to influence the election, it will have to earn the respect of the voters by its publications and record, and then hope that voters will vote for candidate that they support. But they won’t be allowed to donate to campaigns or campaign for candidates.
If this was the rule, then campaigns may find themselves suddenly forced by the playing field to actually talk about issues rather than just rely upon plastering the public with “Hey look at me, i am a wonderful looking guy” ads.
BTW: If investors want to vote for candidates that Microsoft and Boeing support, than Microsoft and Boeing should be satisfied to tell their investors and employees who they support and hope the investors and employees go along with it. Being a huge wealthy corporation should have no more political sway than that.
I guess I could hazard a response to some of the other statements.
Yes there are probably some politicians with integrity who vote in favor of big money corporations time and time again because they sincerely believe they are helping our capitalist economy. Maybe. If so, they just need to clearly defend their voting so we can tell them apart from the slithering power mongering brethren they keep home with.
Eljeffe:
Do I know the temporary lifting of clean water regulations would be a disaster? Maybe this favor for big money oil companies would really trickle down and benefit some people with jobs?? This is the type of argument that make people so apathetic to our government. A politician introduces a bill that clearly does a direct favor to a major corporation, and then they try to argue it really benefits the public at large through some sort of trickle down effect.
How about they introduce legislation that does favors for the public welfare and trickles on major corporations by giving them a happier healthier work force?
Captain Amazing:
Yes, of course the PIRG is publishing opinions. But at least they are publishing opinions that are clearly defined and justified and which they actually believe in. The only people that will listen to them, are people that agree with their well thought out and clearly expressed positions.
The problem are politicians who are voting not based upon well thought out opinions and positions, but rather upon who is giving them money.
I read what the PIRG says about every issue voted, and I agree with their assessment. It seems pretty clear, honest, and well thought out.
Because they explain their position and values so well, their scorecards seem to very convincingly point out which politicians are up for sale and which ones actually vote based upon the issues.
Lobbying doesn’t work like that. A lobbyist doesn’t go into a politician’s office with a big sack of money and say, “Here’s a million dollars. Pass a bill to let me kill baby seals.” That would already be illegal under bribery laws. The seal killing lobbyist has to make his case the same way the seal saving lobbyist does, and they both do it the same way, telling him how it will benefit his district and win him votes if he votes for the bill, or hurt his district and cost him votes if doesn’t vote for the bill. If anything, it works the other way around. A politician takes stances on issues, and then interest groups support him with money and good feelings because of the stances he’s already taken, but whatever his position on an issue is, he’s going to find some group that supports it and will help fund a reelection campaign. In terms of environmental issues, for example, remember, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups also donate to political campaigns.
Well, their scorecards very convincingly point out which politicians voted the way PIRG wanted. That’s what makes scorecards useful…if you know you support PIRG’s stances, or the NRA’s stances, or the Christian Coalition’s stances, or the Sierra Club’s stances, the scorecards will show how the legislators voted on matters important to them, and, presumably, to you.
It’s not a matter of being for sale. You realize that people can have opinions that are contrary to yours but still come upon them honestly, don’t you?
I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I think the evidence actually shows that business gives a lot to both the Republicans than the Democrats, more to the Republicans but lots to both. (I think it was an unstated goal of the Democratic Leadership Council to make the Democrats more business-friendly and thus court their money.)
Perhaps the more accurate distinction between the two parties is that the Republican Party is the party completely bought and paid for by the corporations whereas the Democratic Party is the party mainly bought and paid for by the corporations with a little labor, environmental, and other money thrown in…to round things out to the point where they only do the corporate bidding most of the time rather than all the time. (And, therefore incur the undying wrath of the editorial page of the WSJ.)
Okay, that may be a little overstated. My feelings on how much money influences the process falls somewhere about halfway in between ready29003’s belief that politicians opinions are almost entirely for sale and Captain Amazing’s rosy scenario that politicians vote their conscience with almost no influence from money.
I think the money influence is subtle…For example, it affects who gets in the door to make their case, which opinions are heard most strongly, etc. And, while it may be true that money tends to follow rather than precede a politician’s views on the subject of interest, it also helps to reinforce those views and make it politically costly to change them. Oh, yeah, and the money game also affects who runs for office in the first place and who gets the support of the party big-wigs.
If you believe that money has nothing to do with how the politicians vote, then you will have a hard time explaining the many cases where corporations or other lobby groups give dollars to both parties (or even both candidates in a specific race). You either have to conclude that they are stupidly wasting their money or that they are so freakin’ holy that they just want to give money out of a selflish desire to allow both sides to be heard. Either view seems a bit naive to me.
Finally, on the more constructive subject of what could be done…Well, Maine, which adopted campaign finance reform, is one important model worth looking at. I imagine we could also glean some ideas from other nations.
Hey what a cool new word! Of course, I meant “selfless” although I kinda like the way it turned out…hinting at what my true beliefs are of their motives!
When I went to the site mentioned in the OP most of the favored positions on the mentioned bills had to do with making energy more expensive, making us more dependent on foreign oil, making automobiles less safe, making health care more expensive, restricting first amendment rights, or making it harder for people to obtain credit. I asked myself why anyone in good conscience support such measures which would hurt the poorest among us the hardest while helping only a few special interests. So I did some research and found out about where some of the funding of PIRG comes from. It seems they are raking in the money. Here are some of the grants they received in 1996 and 1997.
1996, Bauman Family Foundation, $25,000
1997, Educational Foundation of America, $15,000
1997, Educational Foundation of America, $111,650
1997, Pew Charitable Trusts, $425,000
1997, Pew Charitable Trusts, $150,000
1997, Public Welfare Foundation, $40,000
1996, Island Foundation, $15,000
1997, Educational Foundation of America, $25,000
1996, Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, $25,000
1996, Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, $20,000
1996, Educational Foundation of America, $90,000
1996, New York Foundation, $34,000
1996, New York Foundation, $35,000
1996, W. Alton Jones Foundation, $40,000
1996, Scherman Foundation, $35,000
1996, Florence & John Schumann Foundation, $70,000
1996, Public Welfare Foundation, $25,000
1996, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, $172,590
It turns out that the people at PIRG are making a killing while advocating policies that hurt honest, hardworking Americans just so they can keep the money rolling in. The solution seems to be to prohibit such groups from lobbying our law makers who are supposed to be acting in our behalf. I think that the only organizations who should be able to lobby congress and donate money to politicians are those who genuinely serve the public interest. I would be willing to be one of the ones who determine what the public interest is to prevent the issue from becoming partisan.
Rhum Runner, I’m working at a local TV station right now. Yep, in a small way, money from political ads helps pay my salary. But spending so much money on ads does not convince me that Dole or Bowles have my best interests at heart. To me, it says that they’re a couple of mudslingers more interested in party politics than in improving the lot of North Carolinians.
The general conclusion is pretty upbeat although it is early yet and there are still some concerns that candidates and various interest groups will figure out ways to circumvent its provisions.
Please name one way in which an Evil Corporation used it’s financial power to control your life today. Did Microsoft send someone to your house to point a gun at your head and force you to yodel your love for Windows? Did Disney have your name legally changed to “Buy More Lilo and Stitch Dolls” while you were sleeping? I’ve never quite gotten the argument that all of these businesses are running our lives. Last I checked, I did pretty much what I wanted, McDonalds, et al, be damned.
If I recall, businesses, as a whole, give to Pubs over Dems at about a 4:1 ratio. And yes, businesses frequently give to both parties in a given race. At best, this shows that businesses believe their contributions mean something. That doesn’t mean they do. For example, Enron gave metric assloads of money to Bush. Bush returned the favor by ignoring Enron’s phone calls and letting the business go under. If I were Enron, I’d be reconsidering how much good all these contributions do, if the purpose of them is to unethically influence the politicians’ actions.
I also don’t see the problem with Dems becoming more business-friendly to court the support of businesses (and, by extension, republicans in general).
FYI, most of the money in republican campaigns comes from corporations (and individuals), while most of the money in deomcratic campaigns comes from labor unions (and indivduals).
I don’t know to what extent I would believe an article in the Nation regarding the performance of a law they championed. They’re hardly an unbiased source.
RTFirefly:
So the problem with politics today is that politicians aren’t liberal enough? There’s been a general shift (some would claim an unfortunate shift) to the center by both parties, and it has nothing to do with the Vile Corrupting Influence of Money.
I was going off overall contributions given to both parties - they tend to be about equal, though the money comes from wildly different sources. However, since you believe that all the democrats are being twisted into vicious republican replicas of their former, saintly democratic selves, I doubt this would convince you.
ready29003:
And this is the type of counter-argument that makes people with a basic knowledge of economics so apathetic to the redundant squawking of the anti-business mynah birds on the left.
I agree this is troublesome, but I still don’t think you’ve done a good job of establishing this behavior as particularly rampant.
Let me guess: the ones that vote on things that you agree with are speaking to their values, the rest are voting based on money?
You can challenge my guess by giving an example of a vote you disagreed with, but that you think was made for noble reasons. And I don’t mean something where you think they should’ve given $50M to Save the Whales, and they only gave $40M - I mean something that goes against your ideological grain. As much as I disagree with democrats on most issues, I’m reasonable enough to admit that most, if not all, make their choices based on their (obviously wrong ) beliefs. Let’s see you do the same.
Jeff
Well, actually, they didn’t point a gun to my head but the tyrrany of the market (and perhaps in Microsoft’s case, some illegal anticompetitive practices) have essentially forced me to use their software to communicate with others whether I like it or not.
This may not seem too tyrranical to you. I often think that the difference between a liberal and a conservative / libertarian really comes down on some gut level of what sort of society you personally buy into and therefore what you feel most put out by. For someone who buys into the whole materialism thing…nice big SUV, big house,…no doubt corporation control is not such a big deal and the government taking some of your precious money that you could use to buy more material stuff, and then spending some of it on things you don’t value so much (although usually less than you think), may seem very controlling. However, for those of us who would like to live in a world where we could bike places, say, and who value public property, public parks, a less polarized society, the corporate control can seem very tyrranical and the government taking some of our money to fund those things pretty benign if not good.
Anyway, this is the subject for a whole other thread. But, that’s how I feel in a nutshell.
Well, it would be nice to see a cite on this although it sounds like it could be roughly right. The Pubs outraise the Dems by some factor close to 2:1 anyway, I believe (but not sure exactly).
Well, like I said, it either makes them stupid…which means they are wasting money (and is thus another example of markets not working as they are ideally supposed to). Or selfless, against all their fiduciary responsibilities. Pick your poison.
Poor example. Lay et al. got lots of access and influence on policy! The fact that Bush et al. were smart enough not to try to jump on a sinking ship with a gaping hole in it doesn’t exactly prove Enron didn’t have influence.
Well, yes, since we have all seen what a responsible business climate results from this, I don’t see why you would worry.
FYI, this claim about the Democratis contradicts everything I have ever seen on this subject. Look here, for example, ignoring the specific state that I chose and looking at the words on the right of the page: http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/dist_blio/MOS2.htm
[I have seen some hard-number breakdowns of the total amounts the Dems have received from labor and business in an election cycle but can’t seem to track them down tonight.]
Would you care to expound on the ways that the Reps have shifted toward the center? Liberal Republicans are almost extinct (I can think of Lincoln Chafee as about the only one who could be labelled that in the Senate) and moderate Republicans are an endangered species.
Again, I seem to recall there is a definite gap, but I’ll have to look more (in my copious free time) for a cite. As for the differences, as Open Secrets notes, the difference is that the Reps are completely bought and paid for by business whereas the Dems have a broader spectrum of contributors but business is still the largest one (which is exactly what I said in my previous post).
Note that total labor contributions were $935,000 whereas three big industries (communications, oil and gas, and aerospace /defense) gave over $1.6 million. “Lawyers and lobbyists” filled in with another $818,000.
It is clearly a matter of perspective…The only reason why the Democrats seem so slanted toward labor is because they are only in comparison to the Republicans. But, both are really slanted toward business in who butters their bread (and, in my opinion, whose bread they butter)!
Well I have a question for you: Who exactly pays for the ‘Free Air Time’ given to candidates?. The owners and operators of TV and cable stations, and their stock holders, have to pay for every second of programing they air. They make money by selling ads but you seem to think they should be forced (and I use that term on purpose) to give away valuable air time without being compensated.
If companies cannot use money to buy ads or support candidates they support how in the hell can they make their case? Should all companies get free air time as well as all candidates?
Well, who exactly do you think owns the airwaves? It is a public good owned by all of us. The idea that the broadcasters have to do certain things in order to use these airwaves is a well-established precedent, as well it should be.
Well, perhaps in exchange for their limited liability and all their other goodies, corporations could give up the right to financially support candidates. Corporations, after all, are not people; they are entities granted certain rights and privileges. [Although, actually, I think public financing laws are probably a better way to go than trying to impose such restrictions…and doesn’t run into the problems of whether or not it will pass constitutional muster.]
) beliefs. Let’s see you do the same.