What would be wrong with this idea for combating corruption in politics?

I am totally not getting this. Your lobster dinners would obviously be illegal extortion under my law. Make a phone call like that and you do two years in Allenwood.

As to Ravenman’s objection, I’m getting that even less. A lobbyist phones me up and says, “Senator, I just wanted you to know that my people sent 100 grand to your re-election committee. Just thought you’d like to know.” My truthful answer is “That’s nice, but so far I’ve had eleven phone calls like yours but only 200,000 has actually shown up, so it’s real hard for me to know who’s telling the truth and who’s trying to blow smoke up my ass.”

I am supporting the notion that political campaign contributions as now constituted are hopelessly corrupt. There is not PROVABLE quid pro quo, but there IS a quid pro quo. I agree with you that the system desperately need reforming. I believe the abuses I cited were exactly what McCain Feingold was intended to prevent, but obviously the money machine is still working.

If Congressman X has been getting $500,000 a year from lobbyist A and the interests he represents prior to campaign reform, he’s VERY likely to take lobbyist A at face value when A tells him that he’s still getting $500,000 a year from A and his members. The wing-tipped lawyers who prowl the lobbies of Washington will find a way to render their campaign contribution claims credible – if only because Congressmen who get bribes … er, contributions … from lobbyists A B and C ALWAYS get AT LEAST the amount A B and C promised, whereas lobbyists X Y and Z are much less reliable sources of funds.

There’s a constant war between one man one vote and one buck one vote, and in a capitalist society, the odds are really stacked in favor of one buck one vote.

Well, my assumption (and I think it’s pretty sound) is that politicians’ war chests will go WAY down once we remove all credit from the contributions. A politician who takes in 20 mil a year now maybe would get 5 mil a year under my plan. (Which isn’t bad, because all politicians’ warchests will decrease, and campaigns will be that much less omnipresent and invasive, though that’s only an incidental benefit.) If all contributors of the 20 mil-a-year period claim that they’re still contributing at their previous levels, but the pol only get 5 mil a year now, it’s obvious that 3/4ths of them are lying–but which 3/4ths? No way to know. That’s the beauty part.

PRR, I think you’re basically trying to set up a system in which politicians don’t trust their contributors. It is not going to happen, unless private donations or free speech are outlawed.

The reason why you can’t get politicians to not trust their contributors is because in politics, trust is never a one-way street. Contributors give to politicians because they trust them on various issues. Politicians take the money because they trust that the contributors are good people. (You might not see them as good people, but that’s beside the point.) It is in the highest interests of contributors and lobbyists to maintain a trusting relationship with politicians of their choice, and vice versa.

To illustrate, its pretty goddamn obvious that NRA doesn’t trust Ted Kennedy on gun control, so any claim from the NRA that it gave to Kennedy would not be trusted by him for a moment. OTOH, what possible motivation would the NRA have to say to Tom DeLay that it gave him $10,000 or whatever, and then withdraw that donation? If word were to leak out of such a stab in the back – and word ALWAYS leaks out in Washington – it would be catastrophic to the NRA. Not only would they lose the trust of Tom DeLay, but also every other politician who had trusted the NRA. There is an absolute zero chance that the NRA would take such a risk, because, hell, they’re flush with cash anyways, and it is only money.

Look, if your suggestion was simply about how to dole out money anonymously, that’d be fine. Maybe some people want to give anonymously, and such a system would be beneficial to them (i.e., a high-profile Republican who doesn’t want to be embarassed by giving to a Democrat). But the two types of people you’re targeting (politicians and lobbyists) base their success on letting people know what they’re doing and for whom they’re doing it. Unless you repeal the First Amendment, they’re going to keep blabbing about how they raise money and who they’re giving it to. It is an integral part of their job.

Oh, and one other thing – let’s say the NRA called up Kennedy and said they’d donated $10,000. The first thing I’d do if I were Ted Kennedy is go make a speech saying that the NRA gave so generously to him, and thank Wayne LaPierre in the most gracious and glowing terms for his commitment to Senator Kennedy’s agenda. I would have not a single bad word to say about the NRA. Kill them with kindness. Literally.

In about five seconds, every pro-gun politican in the country would be on the phone with the NRA, asking them if they’d gone out of their gourd. The NRA rank in file would be in revolt within days. The trust that the group’s membership had in it would be eliminated.

There’d be no surer way for right or left wing PACs to destroy themselves than to claim to give money to their political opponents. Why would savvy contributors drink that hemlock?

Of course I am. As Mr. Moto has said, people contribute because the politician’s PAST is what they want to see more of. What does “trust” in their contributers mean? I don’t want any sort of relationship between a politican and his contributors excepts money going one way and results going to other. No more quid pro quo. That’s what I want. That’s what my system would deliver.

This is part that interests me, because it hints at answering my OP: since I’m outlawing private donations AS EARMARKED WITH THE CONTRIBUTORS’ NAMES , obviously I’m okay with that, but what does this have to do wtih free speech? You can give all the money in creation to Tom Delay AND to Ted Kennedy, and you can get up on a chair in the middle of highway 495 and scream how you love DeLay and Kennedy, so much that you’ve given your sick child’s lunch money to their campaigns. You no longer have a way to prove that you gave that money, but you can still say that you did. That’s total free speech.

This is all about trust. If a policitican wants to trust someone because he sincerely believes his heart is in the right place, let him. he’ll have to trust his own judgment, though, because he’ll no longer have solid evidence of a campaign contribution.

Most pol/lobbyist relationships are far more flexible than the NRA’s with Kennedy or Delay.

No, as I said, I’m FOR the First Amendment. You can say you gave money to any polician. You just now will have no way to prove it, and politicians will have no motivation to see that you get repaid, other than to do their jobs and serve the people as best as they can. That would be a good outcome.

I wish someone would tell me what this has to do with freedom of expresssion.

I think the notion that “five accountants with notebooks” are going to be able to handle the complexities involved taking in and distributing of hundreds of millions / billions of dollars in funds to hundreds / thousands of political campaigns is borderline insane. You’d need over a hundred people minimum (and possibly quite a few more) to even attempt doing something like this.

If you’d compare the number of accountants (and I really think you’re overstating the complexity of this process–it’s putting money into a general fund, and taking money out to specific disbursements, no big deal) to the people currently employed to handle fundraising and financial management on individual campaigns now, I think you’ll see that it’s very cost-effective.

Of course it’s brand-new so you can always find reasons to shoot it down. I just haven’t seen any yet that are remotely convincing. What I’ve heard so far sounds like, it sucks, it’s contrary to human nature, people will always find a way to cheat, politics doesn’t work like that, it sucks, it’s not transparent, it violates some part of the constitution though I can’t say what part exactly, and a lot of other vague complaints.

“no big deal” ?

With all due respect I don’t think you have the vaguest grasp of the complexities involved in the real world structural and logistical requirements of implementing what you propose. Huge total volumes of money streaming in from numerous sources that has to verified and earmarked, then disbursed to thousands of recipients who also have to be verified. This is to say nothing of meeting the legal and administrative oversight requirements that would be sure to be woven into this process.

This solution hinders liberty too much, and plus I don’t think the current system is that bad. I don’t think it is morally wrong for money to influence an election. No where in our constitution does it say that the public is not aloud to influence their representatives save through voting.

If we’re going to take away money, how about we take away privately ran commercials too, and then after that privately organized rallies, and then maybe even stop letting people write op-ed pieces. Where does it stop in the name of “socialist” equality?

The fact is right now people IMO have a pretty clear cut right to use cash to support a campaign.

On top of this I don’t think it’s in the public interest to hide information like this, it would kill lobbying groups which believe it or not are a powerful force for democracy that probably keep our politicians more glued to our interests than anything else we do individually including voting.

And then to sum it up you’re completely off the mark if you think this could all be run by 5 accountants. You’d need an IRS lite with thousands upon thousands of employees to run this system.

Well, at least you’re honest about favoring “one buck equals one vote” over “one man equals one vote.”

I think you’re so invested in this idea that you are more interested in promoting the idea than understanding its shortcomings. You might take note of the fact that, as far as I can tell, nobody else, whether on the right or the left, likes the idea.

You asked what this issue has to do with freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has ruled that political donations are a form of free speech, and may only be limited to the extent that excessive donations would raise questions about the motivations of the donors and recipients. I highly suggest reading
the case.

I just realized that if A and B are running against each other, you don’t have to donate a single cent to A to help him win. Simply mount a negative ad campaign that slings all the mud you can manage at B. If you make the ads yourself, and never once mention A’s name, it’s rather difficult for anybody to claim you’ve made a monetary contribution to their campaign.

You won’t have technically made a contribution. You won’t be anonymous to anybody.

I’m sure this issue is addressed under current laws and possibly in the linked SCOTUS decision. While I understand the need for extremely precise and detailed language in such documents, I’m really having trouble wading through that thing. Even though I am not sure of the details, the ad campaigns of the Swift Boat Vets and others convince me that this is currently legal. Either it will continue to be legal under your system, making it very easy for politicians to see who their contributors are, ot it will be illegal and you’ve just abridged the right to free speech.

And what about the endorsements of publications or groups which endorse a candidate to their members? I don’t know whether the Philadelphia Weekly and The City Paper gave Ed Rendell any money when he ran for governor. But, both endorsed him repeatedly. I’m guessing that a few of the many Jewish organizations in Pennsylvania include an endorsement of Specter in their newsletters whenever he comes up for re-election.

Thanks for the cite, Ravenman. I’m in the middle of reading that (very long) document right now (if there’s a particular section that discusses the “free expression” = “money” issue, I’ll thank you to point it out) but I don’t see where my idea prevents people from either literally saying what they like, or giving all the money they can scrape together to a political candidate. The part of the document I’ve read so far, in fact, seems to limit the amount, or the way one can contribute beyond a certain amount, very sharply, which seems to support the concept that one’s monetary free expression may indeed be curtailed legally.

As to my investment in the idea, I don’t feel invested at all. In fact, I’m pretty sure this idea is impracticible, because I believe the lobbying industry (which would be destroyed by its implementation) is so dug-in and so powerful and so pernicious, that this idea would never, ever fly. But that’s a practical concern, and just highlights the level of quid pro quo corruption in our federal government. I’m still seeking a valid theoretical reason (Constitutional? Legislative? Some loophole that can’t be addressed by law?) that I find convincing, but so far, for all your valiant effort which I appreciate, I’m not persuaded by anyone’s argument.

Aside from the intrenched lobbying industry, which presents an insurmountable obstacle, I’m just not seeing a reason this idea wouldn’t eliminate the quid pro quo.

Doc C–That’s a good point, though I wonder how germane it is. There would still be problems that my idea doesn’t address, and doesn’t try to, and I think “negative ads” is outside the purview of eliminating quid pro quo. I think that’s a separate issue.

I disagree. If the NRA, corporations, NOW, etc can openly support ads slamming the opposition, it’s very clear who they support. Their ads could also be argued to substantially help the candidate get elected. If you’ve helped a candidate get elected and they know it, there’s still quid pro quo.

See 1. A., about a fifth of the way down, including “A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. 18 This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”

You simply don’t understand the motivations of donors. It has nothing to do with the strength of the lobbying industry.

Donors want to help politicians, and they want the politicians to know that they are helping them. That is the central motivation for large contributions. Unless you muzzle donors by restricting their ability to tell politicians about their donations, the donors will ALWAYS tell politicians about the donations they are making.

You counter that some donors might lie, calling into doubt the veracity of all such claims of donations. It is a faulty assumption. Donors and lobbyists are not pathological liars. They have zero motivation to lie about donating to “the other side.” In fact, there are very strong incentives not to give (or claim to give) to “the other side.”

The basic problem is that you’re looking at campaign contributions purely as a technical matter, like the way people check off the box on their tax return to give $3 to the presidential campaign fund. But this is a far different situation that that.

I don’t wish to be nasty, but you have expressed not a single whit of understanding about the motivations of donors and politicians. There is no way in hell you can design a campaign finance system that attacks the motivations of politicans and donors if you don’t even understand what motivates them under the current system. If you wish to take this issue seriously,you must get beyond the catchphrase of “donations buy politicans,” which is a dumbed-down, inaccurate, and misleading explaination of our political system.

This section seems to support my idea, not undermine it, since my idea in no way restricts “the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” nor restricts them in any other way. Further, the whole document seems to suggest that it is entirely legal for the government to regulate the nature of political contributions in gneral, which is what my idea does.

Maybe so. But the motivation of donors is an opinion, not a fact, and you’re invalidating my opinion, which is this: I think some donors are motivated to help those candidates and parties who seems to be doing what the donors want done. Such donors as I’ve just described would be in no way inhibited by the innovations I suggest. (I, for one, would be happy to make political contributions under an enforced anonymity law.) I further think that other donors would contribute ONLY if they knew that they would be repaid somehow by the politicians. I think that these donors would be discouraged by enforced anonymity in campaign contributions, and that’s what such a law is designed to do: eliminate the quid pro quo in campaign contributions.

You seem to be saying as much, in this sentence: “Donors want to help politicians, and they want the politicians to know that they are helping them. That is the central motivation for large contributions.” I disagree with this statement strongly. The first part is correct, but the second part offends me. When I give money to a political campaign, I want nothing from the politician other than his continuing to do good work. If I mailed a politician 100 dollars and he wrote back to me asking what he could do for me other than good work, I would in fact never contribute to his campaign again because I would then know that he trades his principles sometimes to help out campaign contributors and I would seek to contribute to politicians who don’t do that.

Did I say “pathological,” or are you overstating what I did say in order to have an easier argument to refute? Of course some would lie. Some would be honest, and say “Senator, we’ve decided not contribute any more to your campaign,” but many more would say either “Senator, I have contributed $100,000” to your campaign" when they had only contributed $50,000 (perhaps honestly intending to contribute the other $50,000 later, and perhaps not) or “Senator, I’ve contributed $100,000 to your campaign” when they had in fact contributed nothing. When politicians learned as they inevitably would that they had 10 million dollars worth of pledges but only 1 million in their accounts, they would inevitably learn to pay less attention to re-paying moneys that probably were never paid in the first place. Those donors who honestly did not expect or want a quid pro quo for their contributions would continue to donate, and the others would not.

I disagree. Most corporations now might be expected to contribute to Democrats or Republicans or both, depending on the issues they want worked on. Under my plan, such corporations would be motivated to tell the Party they’ve decided not to continue to support that they are still contributing while actually ceasing to contributing anymore.

Then please don’t. I’ve enjoyed the civil discourse that’s been expressed from those who disagree with me in this thread.

This is starting to get nasty; certainly it’s dismissive and presumes a lack of mental acuity on my part. Instead of the dumb catchphrase you attribute to me, try using “Some donations buy some politicians” as the evil I’m seeking to eliminate, and please tell me a reason (other than your beliefs about human nature that I don’t accept) that this idea would be illegal. Like Doc Cathode, you seem to be arguing that one flaw in my idea is that it wouldn’t have an effect on EVERY aspect of the quid pro quo problem, so therefore it’s not worth considering. I don’t know the name for the logical flaw there, but it certainly represents a pretty basic flaw in your reasoning.

No, I don’t challegen your mental acuity. But your understanding of what lobbyists and fundraisers do is just… well, not enlightened by any first-hand experience. I work and hang out with these people, and while I wouldn’t change jobs with them, I do understand the campaign system from my work here in DC and on a congressional campaign elsewhere.

From that experience, I am telling you without an ounce of prejudice: the system you propose would only produce a minor technical change in the rules they play by. It absolutely would not be any fundamental change to how they do business. They would still make the upmost effort to help politicans they support raise funds, and the politicians they work with would know exactly what they’re doing. There is simply no chance that these donors would stand by and allow themselves to remain anonymous, unless they were legally prevented from speaking to politicians about their work. It just would never happen.

No. I’m saying the idea would end up changing not a single thing about the system, other than creating a new hoop for contributors to jump through. There would be zero change in the QPQ.

the system you propose would only produce a minor technical change in the rules they play by. It absolutely would not be any fundamental change to how they do business. They would still make the upmost effort to help politicans they support raise funds, and the politicians they work with would know exactly what they’re doing. There is simply no chance that these donors would stand by and allow themselves to remain anonymous, unless they were legally prevented from speaking to politicians about their work. It just would never happen.

This sounds like an argument from authority to me. I’m supposed to believe my idea makes no sense solely because you have some knowledge of the field that I lack, and so I’m supposed to throw my hands in the air, and say “Gawrsh, I wish I was knowledgable like that Ravenman feller!”? I’d like some specifics, please.

Suppose for a moment that it’s against the law to contribute to a pol’s campaign unless it’s done anonymously via my hypothetical agency. How, exactly, would these illegal contributions then get made?