# Let's debate the merits (not the constitutionality) of campaign finance reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625 "2004-12-26T01:03:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/1 "2004-12-26T01:03:38Z")
Whenever we debate campaign finance reform in this forum, it seems we always spend most of our time debating whether it’s forbidden by the First Amendment. For purposes of this thread, let’s ignore that and focus on the more basic question of whether it’s a good idea. If it is, it might be worth amending the Constitution for. Let us also ignore the questions of what exact campaign finance measures should be used, and whether they could be made to work. This thread is for discussing whether there actually is a problem here that requires solving. 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): > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.” > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” > > One of the effects of the postpartisan PAC system is to weaken the link between members of Congress and senators and the districts and states they are supposed to represent. Out-of-state money from special interests often flowes into House and Senate elections. This means that many senators are, in effect, at-large representatives of free-spending national business constituencies. > > **Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significant influence on public policy. If all of this money is not buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year.** I say we need to change this system, however we do it, to make it impossible – not merely difficult but impossible – for anybody to influence the outcome of an election by spending money on it. This is a good and necessary thing because: 1. Under our present system of campaign financing, the rich and the corporations have disproportionate influence (“disproportionate” meaning, out of proportion with their numbers) over our election processes – over who can be taken seriously as a potential candidate to start with, and who gets nominated, and who gets elected. 2. The above is a Very Bad Thing, in and of itself. It’s plutocracy, not democracy. Elections are the most important – for most of us the only – way we have to make the government serve the will of the people, which is what democracy is all about. And as it stands, the rich have more influence over the rest of us in deciding who will be making important public decisions, and they will naturally favor those who can be counted on to favor the interests of the rich even when those conflict with the interests of the majority. (And yes, it is possible for the interests of the rich to conflict with the interests of the majority. If you dispute that point we’ll need to start a whole new thread just to discuss that.) 3. Our present system also gives the rich and corporations disproportionate influence over what officials do once they are in office – because once elected they owe their donors a favor, and because they will be needing more favors in the future. There’s always another election coming up. 4. The above is a Very Bad Thing, for the same reasons given in point 3, but squared and cubed. Now, does anybody seriously dispute any of these four points? For instance, do you see some positive value in letting the rich call the shots? ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/2 "2004-12-26T02:42:50Z")
CFR is bad because it’s like the war on drugs. You just ain’t gonna win. You can spout off ethical and moral reasons why the rich should not have more influence in elections, but the fact of the matter is that rich people with opinions will use their cash to get their opinions heard. When the current wave of CFR was passed, you got things like NRA radio and Air America. You tried to seperate the money and the candidates, but then the money found other ways to be heard, and then any idiot can link the candidates with the campaign issue. “Hmmm… I’ve been listening to NRA radio and decided that I am opposed to gun control, should I vote Bush or Kerry? Decisions, decisions.” Also, it means that “news-sources” that once put a premium on impartiality are now openly biased, which is a bad thing. Short of ending all speech, you just won’t be able to end money-backed political speech. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/3 "2004-12-26T02:49:20Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > CFR is bad because it’s like the war on drugs. You just ain’t gonna win. > > You can spout off ethical and moral reasons why the rich should not have more influence in elections, but the fact of the matter is that rich people with opinions will use their cash to get their opinions heard. When the current wave of CFR was passed, you got things like NRA radio and Air America. You tried to seperate the money and the candidates, but then the money found other ways to be heard, and then any idiot can link the candidates with the campaign issue. > > “Hmmm… I’ve been listening to NRA radio and decided that I am opposed to gun control, should I vote Bush or Kerry? Decisions, decisions.” > > Also, it means that “news-sources” that once put a premium on impartiality are now openly biased, which is a bad thing. Short of ending all speech, you just won’t be able to end money-backed political speech. I understand the campaign financing laws in Europe, Australia, etc., are pretty effective. (So say some Dopers from those countries who have posted in relevant threads, some of which I started.) But let’s table the feasibility-of-enforcement question for the moment, along with all issues related to the First Amendment. Assuming that effective CFR **can** be done, is there any non-constitutional reason why it **shouldn’t** be done? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/4 "2004-12-26T02:56:55Z")
I think that quoted book is wrong. I don’t believe that political donations buy results, to paraphrase its point. I know a number of lobbyists who are involved in just the sort of doling out campaign funds in the manner described, and, to a man, they do not believe that they are buying votes. They believe that they are buying access. That’s a notable difference. However, this stuff does indeed taint the system, no doubt. However, the suggestion in the OP – something like ending the influence of money in elections – is completely and 100% impossible under any system that allows people to donate money to their favored candidates. For most races, money doesnt influence the election, advertisements do. I’ve never known anyone to cast their vote based upon which candidate raised the most money. Does the OP mean that we should crack down on political advertisements? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/5 "2004-12-26T03:15:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think that quoted book is wrong. I don’t believe that political donations buy results, to paraphrase its point. I know a number of lobbyists who are involved in just the sort of doling out campaign funds in the manner described, and, to a man, they do not believe that they are buying votes. They believe that they are buying access. That’s a notable difference. They might not be buying votes as such, but they buy access because access does get them results. Were it not so, all lobbyists would be part-time volunteers. > [@Ravenman](#): > > However, the suggestion in the OP – something like ending the influence of money in elections – is completely and 100% impossible under any system that allows people to donate money to their favored candidates. Then let’s have a system that does **not** allow people to donate money to their favored candidates. It’s not allowed in all democracies, you know. > [@Ravenman](#): > > For most races, money doesnt influence the election, advertisements do. And that’s **how** money influences the election. Because advertising costs money and that’s where practically all campaign donations go. Which means any aspiring candidate has to win a “wealth primary” to even have a chance of being taken seriously. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Does the OP mean that we should crack down on political advertisements? Maybe. I want to discuss principles in this thread, not details and mechanics. But in France, for instance, political advertising as we know it does not exist. The candidates in any election are allotted equal time, for free, on TV stations – which gives each candidate an equal chance to get his or her message across to the voters. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/6 "2004-12-26T04:06:41Z")
The whole premise of this thread is flawed. Much campaign finance reform runs counter to the First Amendment, that pesky little thing slapped onto the Constitution mor’n two hundred years ago that so many folks try to ignore. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that certain types of “reforms” are a constitutional violation. Therefore, ignoring the constitutional aspect of this issue is ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. It would be far better to discuss the issue in its totality. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/7 "2004-12-26T04:08:56Z")
Right, just ignore the constitutionality, ignore the feasability, ignore everything that doesn’t support CFR? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/8 "2004-12-26T04:14:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I…For most races, money doesnt influence the election, advertisements do… Expanding on what BrainGlutton said, widespread advertising costs a lot of money… and a big advertising budget can allow advertisements to be more effective by them being more tailored to the audience, use of the best advertisement makers in the industry, etc. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/9 "2004-12-26T15:09:05Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Much campaign finance reform runs counter to the First Amendment, that pesky little thing slapped onto the Constitution mor’n two hundred years ago that so many folks try to ignore. > > The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that certain types of “reforms” are a constitutional violation. > > Therefore, ignoring the constitutional aspect of this issue is ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. I repeat: If we look at the issue closely, it might prove to be important enough to amend the Constitution over it. > [@threemae](#): > > Right, just ignore the constitutionality, ignore the feasability, ignore everything that doesn’t support CFR? No. Focus on things **other** than constitutionality and feasibility, that might or might not support CFR. No point discussing the other points until we’ve first determined whether it’s a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/10 "2004-12-26T15:48:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No. Focus on things **other** than constitutionality and feasibility, that might or might not support CFR. No point discussing the other points until we’ve first determined whether it’s a good idea. But a major part of why CFR is a bad idea is precisely the restrictions it imposes on political speech, which, in addition to being consitutionally problematic, is itself a Bad Idea. Attempting to discuss the merits of this issue without consideration of the speech restrictions is an attempt to consider the merits of the issue without looking at the demerits. It’s not an honest debate if you a priori rule one side out of order. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/11 "2004-12-26T16:35:06Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > But a major part of why CFR is a bad idea is precisely the restrictions it imposes on political speech, which, in addition to being consitutionally problematic, is itself a Bad Idea. And how is political speech “restricted” in those countries that have effective campaign financing laws, such as France? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/12 "2004-12-26T19:14:05Z")
France doesn’t have the same First Amendment rights that we do. They can limit their political speech and ban headscarfs for Muslims in public schools; those things would be blatant violations of our First Amendment. I don’t see France as being anti-free speech, but our standard of free speech is probably more liberal than theirs. Personally, I’m loath to tinker with the Bill of Rights unless there is a really really big problem out there. The main problem with the current campaign finance laws, as I see it, is that they make politicans look sleazy even if they play by the rules. I’m not entirely convinced that this problem of the public’s perception of politicans is something that can really be fixed – folks will always come up with new ways to think that polticians are slimebags. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-merits-not-the-constitutionality-of-campaign-finance-reform/281625/13 "2004-12-26T19:59:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Personally, I’m loath to tinker with the Bill of Rights unless there is a really really big problem out there. There is, **Ravenman,** there is. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The main problem with the current campaign finance laws, as I see it, is that they make politicans look sleazy even if they play by the rules. I’m not entirely convinced that this problem of the public’s perception of politicans is something that can really be fixed – folks will always come up with new ways to think that polticians are slimebags. Irrelevant. The problem here is not the public’s perception of politicians, but the reality of campaign donations’ effects on elections and public policy.