The best argument against this is the fact that many of the bigger corporate names will end up donating maximum amounts to multiple candidates, including both candidates in a general election. (This used to be true, anyway; I’m not sure it is these days, when things are more polarized.)
Under my proposed system, I’m not even sure what a “maximum” amount would be or that there need be one. If you don’t get credited with contributing $$$, why would we need a maximum?
I’m trying very hard to take your objections, Mr. Moto, at face value: I’m not really sure why your head doesn’t explode at the thought that sometimes public moneys are misused right now. You say you need " assurance the money is going to its intended target" before you’ll fork it over? Like your tax money is always spent properly? Maybe you want to be shown last year’s balance sheet of the federal budget, and track down every dime of the taxes you paid to be assured none of your tax money went to send some congressman on a fact-finding mission to Belize which he spent totally drunk on the beach? Without such assurances, I don’t understand why you pay income tax. If I were you, and I needed the assurances you claim to need, I’d much prefer spending my life in prison for tax evasion than ever paying those non-assuring bastards a nickel.
As to Jayjay’s point that under my system, campaign contriibutions would sharply decline, I must agree, and that’s one of the intended effects of this system: If we eliminate all the self-interested, quid pro quo moneys for the process, leaving only moneys intended to support candidates the giver genuinely supports (with exactly the motives Mr. Moto suggests), campaign contributions would decline (and could be spent on other things, like dividends for shareholders of major corporations). But since they’d dry up across the board, it’s hard to see that this would hurt any one party or candidate: You only need 40 million to fund a campaign now because your opponent is spending 38 million. If he had only 6 million, you could get by with a similar amount.
You know, I’m pretty sure that there is a sound objection to my proposal here. I don’t find any of Mr. Moto’s arguments remotely convincing or even particularly logical (he challenges the concept of corruption under our present system and demands a kind of assurance that would vitiate any kind of financial transaction), though, and I haven’t really seen much to suggest a different line of objection.
The only reason people pay taxes under the current system is the threat of prison. Under your plan, we would have to imprison everyone who did not donate to the campaign commission. Without such a threat, your plan will fail, and campaign donors will find a loophole in the law that will allow them to influence candidates directly, as they always have. To think otherwise is to deny reality.
Under your plan, we would have to imprison everyone who did not donate to the campaign commission.
I’m sorry, I’m not sure how you got this impression. I’m not mandating that we make contributing mandatory.
You could ONLY contribute legally to a campaign by channeling the moneys through the agency, but you are not compelled to contribute anything. Perhaps you get that and meant to write “Under your plan, we would have to imprison everyone who did not donate THROUGH the campaign commission.” That would be correct.
If you’re objecting to my new law, I don’t get it. We can’t pass such a law because you think “someone” may find “loopholes” in it? Why does that logic apply to this law and not to any other law? What “loopholes” are you so afraid of? Is there some unspoken draconian measure that you think this law entails that other laws do not?
I’m wondering if there is some Constitutional issue preventing the proposal. I know campaign financing is often considered the expression of free speech, though I can’t see how this law would inhibit that, in that you could still contribute all the money you like, and still speak as freely as you like, in favor of a candidate, you just can’t make the claim that you’ve contributed money (and have the campaign support your claim in a meaningful way.) So I’m not seeing free speech being an issue here.
Holy crap, I agree with Mr Moto!
#1 Comparing contributions under Psuedotron Ruber Ruber’s system to taxes is flawed. Taxes are compulsory. Mr Moto may well be upset over how his taxes are being spent. But, he must pay them. He cannot choose how that money is spent (other than through voting, and writing his representatives). Campaign contributions are voluntary. Currently, a contributor has total control over what groups get his money. If a contributor can not know for certain who will get his money, why choose to contribute?
#2 You don’t buy a politician through contributions. You contribute to the candidate who already agrees with you and will act in a way you want. EG Jewish groups all over Pennsylvania contribute to Arlen Specter because he has been strongly pro-Israel for so long. The National Rifle Association doesn’t try to sway candidates with money. It finds candidates who are longtime members, and gives them money.
#3 Secrecy invites corruption. Considering the amount of porkbarrels, slushfunds, kickbacks, and graft just on the local news in the past few years, and in transparent areas of government, I don’t see how these folks could be trusted. All a bipartisan group means is that they would try to skim from the Democrats and Republicans equally.
Then how do you explain special interest groups like the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry who make large contributions to both parties? Granted, they donate more to Republicans than Democrats, but they are still careful to donate millions to the Democrats, just in case. If not to buy influence, are they just too stupid to know which party represents their interests?
I seem to be taking as a given something people are reluctant to accept: that the curent system of political contributions is hopelessly corrupt, tremendously wasteful, and commonly winked-at. Of course corporations are flooding the market by throwing money at politicians in the reasonable expectation that the pols will remember who put them in office when laws are being passed affecting the corporations’ business. No one doubts this for a second (other than Mr. Moto).
Tell me, Doc C., if you were to appoint some accountant approved by Hillary Clinton and I were to appoint one approved by John McCain, are you telling me that they, working in tandem with a team of similiarly bipartisan accounts, would be unable to make sure that the moneys collected by the agency would go into the pockets of the intended pols? This is about the simplest thing to devise: by its nature, you’d have one thing (money) coming in, you’d have bank accounts to deposit it in, you’d have disbursement, you’d have records up the yin-yang. But a team of bi-partisan accountants couldn’t supervise this to ensure that the money coming in is exactly equal to the money going out, and that the lists of pols and parties that it’s intended for is not identical to the list of parties receiving it? I really don’t get this.
And further tell me, what assurance you have that your current political contributions are going to the correct causes? You’re giving money to a reformist candidate who, unknown to you, is squandering it on dope and loose women. Do you know it’s NOT being misused? It seems to me this argument is saying “It don’t matter how it’s used or misused, so long as I get credit for having given it.” If that’s not corruption, I don’t know what corruption is.
It seems to me that “secrecy” is just a code-word here for “not getting credit.” You donate money all the time and never can be sure that it’s being used properly, but as long as you get credit for donating it, it’s just peachy. You’re complaining that my agency would deprive you of the credit, and of course that’s the whole idea. Or are you seriously proposing that there is no system of bipartisan administration, no possible safeguards against corruption, that could come close to satisfying you?
PRR’s does make sense, he is referring to the fact that the IRS is under legal mandates not to disclose information and to handle monies accurately within established legal boundaries.
His continued favorable behavior is often assured with consistent contributions…
Because like IRS, FBI, etc, their employees don’t get fired for revealing or tampering with the information they handle…they go to jail. All of the things you mentioned involve direct financial interation between a candidate and an individual or corporation. Stripping that bond makes it impossible to know if I did or did not personally contribute to my campaign. It would also make it possible for the IRS to accurately monitor/audit the candidates finances since all contributions would pass through the “agency” rather than in many cases being handled by individuals appointed by the candidates who in many cases will do things in the candidates favor…legal or not.
Check out this idea for combating corruption in politics, pseudo: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462
Of course, the OP simply assumes that a politician trading votes, support, etc., for campaign donations is corruption in politics. And legally, it isn’t; it doesn’t count as bribery. Maybe it should.
Here’s a pretty good rebuttal to that, 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):
Brainglutton I never said that the contributions did not influence policy and law. I said, and still say, that they don’t do so by buying candidates.
Re Contributions to both parties
Again, unless you can prove contributions to candidates running directly against eachother, I don’t see what this proves. The Hypothetical Oil Corporation will make contributions to candidates who support their position. HYCO does not care what party these folks belong to, or what other positions they hold. If the liberal Democrat running for senator in Iowa supports more drilling, he gets money. If the conservative Republican in Hawaii supports more drilling, gets money. HYCO has just given money to both parties. They have not bought a politician, just supported ones who already hold positions HYCO likes.
In terms of practical results, what is the difference?
First, any comparisons to the IRS and this campaign finance system are bogus. The IRS collects tax money and puts basically all (save a tiny fraction) into the Treasury’s General Fund. The IRS does not distribute funds to the agencies that end up using the funds. Those disbursements are, in fact, are made in the most transparent way possible. The Constitution provides that Congress must debate and pass a law providing for those disbursements. The OP’s idea and references to the IRS has nothing in common with this system.
Second, I don’t think that the idea would do anything whatsoever. There is no way that the disbursements would be made anonymously. For example, let’s say I’m running a PAC for the Human Rights Campaign/NRA. So, the next time I meet Ted Kennedy/Tom Delay, I’d pull out an envelope and tell them: “Hey buddy! Look at this giant check that I’m about to send in to your campaign! Lookit all those zeros!” Then I’d sign the letter to the commission directing all those funds go to Kennedy/Delay, put the check and the letter in the envelope, slap a stamp on that baby, and leave it in the outgoing mail. Then I’d put out a press release so that all the members of the HRC/NRA would know what a great PAC I’m running.
The only way to make campaign contributions completely anonymous would be either to repeal the First Amendment (so that individuals would not be able to tell the public how much they gave to Kennedy’s/Delay’s campaign), or institute Federally-funded elections that give each candidate equal or proportionate amounts.
Third, to Priceguy’s point, political campaign donations are regulated by law, and funnelling “gift” cash to a campaign through intermediaries is already illegal.
BrainGlutton
Either way, corporations etc have a great deal of influence on politics.
If their money is buying politicians, then our government is filled with people who are willing to sell their souls, our wellbeing, and our future to the highest bidder.
But if that money is being given to politicians because of what they already believe, then our government is filled with people who are working to do what they feel is right and best for our country.
But in the latter case, the only people who have a realistic chance of getting elected (and re-elected, and re-elected, etc.) are those whose view of what is “right and best for our country” is more or less the same as what their corporate donors want done. The results will be pretty much the same as if our members of Congress were actually on their payroll.
Only on those issues corporations care about. While all politicians funded by HYCO will vote for more oil exploration, no funding of alternative fuels etc they will have a wide variety of views on same sex marriage, education, tax reform, etc.
Which is exactly the same result as we would get if our elected officials were consciously in the service of corporate paymasters.
The more foolish methods you devise for skirting my law, the easier you make my case for enacting it. All you’d need to invalidate your Kennedy/Delay scenario would be a simple provision allowing for “giver’s remorse.” At any point up to a month, or a week, or whatever, after donating contributions, the giver may withdraw the contribution. So if you went up to K/D, and handed them a check in an addressed, stamped envelope, they have no way to know you weren’t secretly withdrawing it fifteen minutes later.
Further, say you issue your press release. I see it, and immediately go up to K/D and say that MY PAC is contributing that same exact amount. Since only one of those checks is real (yours) but both of us are claiming the contribution, why would they believe you and not me? Even further, why assume that only one contribution shows up on their account? If 100 K/D supporters are contributing a total of 1 million per month, why can’t I claim to be the 101st (while contributing nothing)? I promise you, under this system, there would be claims for contributions WAY higher than the actual amounts being contributed, and any candidate over the age of four and a half would know not to pay attention to anyone’s claim or promise.
It doesn’t seem all that hard to me to come up with a system thats at least fairly resistant to corruption.
Lets make the assumption that it is a 5 man job. First, draft up a list of 1000 people deemed competant of handling such a job. From that list, draw up a random 12 names. Split the workload into 10 lots of 1/5th workload in such a fashion that every 5th has some overlap with every single other 5th. Hand these workloads out to 10 of the 12 people and have them do it. Then, have each of them check their results against every other persons section of overlapping workload. If any discrepancies are found, then the 2 other people act as independant investigators to find out who, if anybody, was at fault and apply serious penalties if neccesary. Both investigators are required to make the same decision or the entire thing gets bumped up into a congressional inquiry and lots of heads will roll.
If there is any one honest person among an entire bunch of corrupt ones, then the whistle will be blown and the corruption will be found.
Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding! A difference which makes no difference, is no difference. I was wondering if I was going to have to be the one who makes this point.
BTW, I remember reading some articles about political cmapaigns soliciting contributions from lobbyists VERY aggressively in the 80s and 90s – political staffers would call lobbying group A and say, “We’re holding a $1000 a plate lobster dinner on Friday, we want to see five of your people there. Bye.” And then on to lobbyists B-Z. It was routine. I bet that in some form, it still is.
Sure sounds corrupt to me.
I think Ravenman’s objection to PRR’s system is the strongest one I’ve seen, and it’s rather convincing. Even if you create an agency to anonymize the funds the politicians receive, the lobbyists will make sure their pols know who’s giving them money, and how much. THAT would be very hard to prevent.
This is why full public funding is the only way to combat corruption in this arena. I’m all for it. Damn campaign funding as freedom of speech…I’d say that the problem of bought-and-paid-for politicians is more than compelling reason enough to restrict on this issue.