If all elections allowed only public funding of campaigns, would that help get money out of politics? We’d also need to prevent officials who previously had decision-making power from working for those they regulated after leaving and a way to enable third party candidates to run too, but it seems like a good first step. Is this dumb? If so, how can it be modified so that it’s a good idea.
What about PACs? I think even if campaigns themselves were only directly funded with public money, we still have that pesky Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited corporate and dark money support for candidates. The problem is that the people with the power and money want to be able to use that power and money to increase their power and money. Nothing will stop them from this goal, and unfortunately they control way too much of our government to let public financing happen.
How would you make such a rule without running afoul of the First Amendment?
By clarifying that money is not speech, just like we do in other contexts.
Or are taxes a violation of my first amendment right because they force me to spend my money (AKA SP33CH ZOMG) on government programs I may disagree with?
What other contexts? And should we just decide to ignore Court rulings?
Who decides which campaigns get funding? At what level of government does funding start? Why can’t wealthy individuals use their own funds if they want to?
You can have freedom of the press, you just can’t spend any money to print anything?
Don’t fight the hypothetical! The OP asks:
Would allowing only public funding of elections help eliminate corruption?
So pretend such a rule could magically be enacted and pass muster with the SCOTUS.
My answer would be “no,” because corruption always finds a way. The OP cites one: officials taking jobs in favored industries upon leaving office. They’d find lots more. As long as humans have the opportunity to exercise unequal power over each other, we’ll find a way to leverage it into personal gain.
So, therefore, we shouldn’t do anything.
Talk about an excluded middle!
So you take it back?
Those who have more money and/or raise more money would be at a undeniable advantage. Who does this plan lower corruption if votes can still be bought, so to speak?
Why, did I admit I was wrong?
There’s a hell of a lot of excluded middle between “allow only public funding of elections” and “do nothing.” Besides which, the OP wasn’t even asking for alternative solutions, just exploring a hypothetical.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that, because corruption is a law of nature, no change could ever help. I guess I’m not really sure that’s the same thing as an excluded middle but it does seem like a cop out to me.
Corruption is a “law” of human nature, but that’s one reason we have actual laws – to limit corruption’s sway, punish its worst perpetrators and try to maintain fairness despite its pervasiveness.
But just because we’ll never eliminate it doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and do nothing.
Congress which means only Dems and Pubs will get funding.
And are we counting issue campaigns too like propositions? Or “Not an ad for Joe Blow but the death penalty is a good thing and Joe Blow’s opponent hates the death penalty.” ads?
It’s my understanding that Citizens United allows unlimited funding of issue campaigns but are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns, nudge, nudge. So, if you want to run an ad that says support the right to life or ban AR-15s or whatever and support candidates who do, you still can. But my idea would be to allow candidates who meet some threshold criteria to receive a set amount of taxpayer bux and that’s it. They aren’t allowed to spend another dime and have to keep a record of what public money was spent on.
While it’s true that “corruption finds a way”, hopefully with a government that’s no longer in thrall to money can plug the leaks as they come up. This isn’t intended to be the last law ever passed on the subject.
Speaking of which, if any lawyers here can confirm or correct my understanding of the law here, please do so.
There will still be such a thing as earned media, of course but hopefully this will have the side effect of ending perpetual campaigns.
That depends on who is pushing for it. It might very well be the intent is to push this through, promise followup…then drop the subject.
But government is made up of people, and people won’t stop being in thrall to money. And money isn’t the only currency – the prospects of sex, influence, power, favors, even just attention – can also corrupt people.
And I’m not even one of those people who says “all politicians are corrupt.” I think most are at least partially driven by ideals (however warped) and that our system has for the most part done a decent job of balancing the human inclination toward corruption against the ideal of a fair, just society. (IMO Citizens United was a regrettable blow against that balance.) I just don’t believe any reform (or series of reforms) can truly remove corruption from politics.