July 27, 2005
Reform Campaign Finance Reform
“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”Ronald Reagan - 1977
The free choice of private individuals and organizations to support candidates for public office is intrinsic to the very nature of representative democracy. Any private entity must be permitted to donate its time, labor and capital to the candidate of its choice. While no one who believes in democracy would advocate limiting the amount of time or effort private individuals or organizations may contribute to political candidates or their parties, well intentioned but erroneous reformers have made strenuous efforts to severely limit their monetary contributions.
These attempts have proven to be extremely problematic for two reasons. First, they have been largely ineffectual. In the spirit of the post-Watergate reforms, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 by limiting the amount of money individuals and organizations could donate to candidates for federal office. By employing unregulated "soft money" and bundled campaign contributions, however, candidates, their parties, and a myriad of special interest groups have circumvented these and subsequent restrictions. As a result, the Congress passed the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Bill and President Bush signed it into law on March 27, 2002. Although this law limits the amount of soft money individuals and organizations may contribute and increases the transparency of issue advertising, it actually doubles the amount of "hard money" contributions that may be bundled into purchasing influence.
Second, restrictions on political donations raise important constitutional issues by inhibiting the freedom of political expression within the public arena. Although most of the provisions of the Campaign Reform Act were upheld by the Supreme Court by a majority vote of five to four, as Justice Scalia wrote succinctly in his dissent in McConnell vs. FEC,
". . . an attack upon the funding of speech is an attack upon speech itself."
Thus, both practice and theory compel opposition to recent congressional efforts to promulgate these futile and unconstitutional limitations upon the ability of individuals and organizations to express their political opinions by contributing their time, effort, or property to candidates for public office.
Because it plays a vital role in campaigns for public office, private capital has been, is and will be an essential element of the democratic process. Nevertheless, massive political contributions may be accompanied by an actual or tacit quid pro quo. In so doing they transmute from the expression of political opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment, to bribery, which is not.
The Supreme Court recognized the difference between protected speech and bribery in its 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo. In this decision, it held that although portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 were unconstitutional, Congress could place restrictions upon most political donations because doing so is one of the:
". . . primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
Simply put, in attempting to differentiate between a donation and a bribe, the Court distinguished between political contributions that do not purchase influence and those that do. It then maintained that that former is protected speech, and that the latter is not. Thus, the Court permitted reformers of campaign financing to reduce the corrupting influence of large campaign contributions by limiting their size. Conversely, their opponents contend that these limitations place unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions upon the freedom of donors to express their political opinions financially. Unfortunately, both sides in this dispute have missed the crux of the issue: they are arguing about the money when the real problem is not the money but the influence it purchases.
The proper resolution of this issue can be found in the famous standard espoused by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his opinion in Schenck v. United States in 1919. This standard permits a prior restraint against free speech, such as political contributions, when they exhibit a "clear and present danger" to bring about "substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent". Bribery and improper influence clearly meet this standard. As Justice Holmes observed crucially, however,
"It is always a case of proximity and degree."
Thus, when the proximity of the private donor to the public candidate is high and the degree of the donation is large, corrupting influence is likely to ensue: political favors will be bought and sold. When either the proximity or the degree is reduced so that improper influence is eliminated, political donations become a benign form of free speech.
Campaign finance reformers have focused their efforts upon reducing the degree of political contributions by limiting their size. Rather than restricting improper political influence by limiting the degree of the donation, Congress must reduce the proximity of the donor to the recipient instead. By doing so the size of political contributions may be increased significantly without incurring the de facto bribery of corrupting influence. To appropriate Justice Holmes's famous example of pernicious speech, campaign finance reformers have sought to silence the man shouting "Fire!" in a crowed theatre. Instead, they should remove him from the theatre so that he can shout "Fire!" to his heart's content.
Nevertheless, this fire-shouting man, even if he was standing outside the theatre, could amplify his voice loud enough to panic the patrons within, and in so doing speak in a manner that causes a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. Hence, Congress must determine that point at which the degree of this incendiary speech itself is sufficiently loud so as to necessitate a prior restraint against its expression, notwithstanding its reduced proximity. As this theory pertains to private political donations, if the proximity of the donor to an individual candidate is diminished significantly or eliminated completely, at what point, if any, does the mere amount of the contribution itself transform it from the financial expression of political opinion, which must be protected, into an inherently corrupting bribe, which must be proscribed? It is at this point that a prior restraint against this form of political expression becomes both desirable and permissible because the size of the contribution does not simply corrupt any individual candidate for public office; it corrupts the democratic process itself.
Therefore, in restricting the size of political donations, Congress must adopt the following seven regulations:
1) A maximum amount of $100,000 per election cycle, either given or received, must be established regardless of the public or private nature of either the recipient or the donor.
2) Candidates for federal office and advocacy organizations must be prohibited from soliciting or accepting contributions of any kind directly or indirectly with a value in excess of $100 from any individual or organization within any thirty-day period.
3) Offering, accepting, soliciting or disclosing political contributions in excess of $100 per month must constitute the felony of bribery, pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code.
4) Individuals and organizations that wish to contribute between $101 and $100,000 to any candidate for federal office or any political advocacy organization must do so through an independent third party, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which shall guarantee their anonymity.
5) Donors must be permitted to direct the FEC to disburse their contributions to the specific individuals or organizations of their choice, and the FEC must deposit these donations into a general advocacy account that distributes these assets weekly.
6) The FEC must create and maintain a comprehensive database of donors and recipients, thereby ensuring that the $100,000 maximum limit for political contributions is not exceeded.
7) As the legal advocate for the electorate at large, the FEC must be prevented from releasing any information about the identity of a donor or a recipient or the amount donated for at least twenty years after the death of the individual or dissolution of the organizational recipients or donors. Notwithstanding a specific warrant from a court of appropriate jurisdiction, violating the public's right of attorney/client privilege must constitute a felony commensurate with the disclosure of information that has been classified as secret for national security purposes.
Charitable political donations are a form of protected speech, but the use of private financial assets to purchase actual or tacit political obligations is a form of bribery, regardless of whether it is an individual candidate or the public at large that is being influenced monetarily. Treating political influence as a commodity to be bought and sold in an open market is antithetical to the principles of democracy and cannot be allowed to continue unabated for three reasons. First, it inhibits the free flow of information into the political marketplace of ideas, thereby creating a self-perpetuating status quo. Second, it induces our public officials to act as little more than articulate and telegenic prostitutes. Finally, it exacerbates the cynicism of a disaffected electorate.
As Sophocles wrote in Antigone, Americans must embrace the sentiments of Creon when he said,
"For me, whoe'er is called to guide a state and . . . as worthier than his country counts his friend, I utterly despise him."
Using money to purchase the "friendship" of public servants is reprehensible. Private money cannot and should not be excluded from politics, but the private influence it purchases can and must be.
Posted by Chuck Hanrahan at July 27, 2005 03:59 PM
home.comcast.net\~d.a.n\ElectionReform.htm
d.a.n,
Checked out your site & liked a lot of what I saw (not so sure about “approval voting” however).
Nevertheless, the point I was making in my post is that it’s not about the money, it’s about the influence. The wealthy have as much right to express themselves politically as the indigent. My point is that they should be able to do so, but they should have to do it anonymously.
Scalia was right: an attack on the funding of speech is an attack on speech itself. With anonymous contributions, both issues are resolved. Individuals and organizations can support the candidates and causes of their choice (within a reasonable $100K limit), but they can’t do so in order to buy influence and favors.
Chuck, putting a cap limit on individual contributions to the mean of all contributions would go a very long way toward insuring that middle class voices (money) are just as loud as wealthy voices.
The problem with the current system is the a million dollar contribution speaks far louder than 100 thousand dollar contributions, which results in politicians heeding the voices of the minority in some cases more than the majority.
If the sum of last year’s contributions is divided by the total number of last year’s contributions, one has a simple formula for setting the caps on individual contributions for the current year, which could be announced at the end of January each year.
Anonymous contributions are a horrible idea. Do you really want the American public to NOT have access to the names of those who use money to seek influence (bribe) those in our Government. That wreaks of lack of accountability. If the Chinese Government began making huge contributions a two candidates, as a voting American, I would want to know that, wouldn’t you?
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 27, 2005 09:53 PMAnonymous contributions are a horrible idea. Do you really want the American public to NOT have access to the names of those who use money to seek influence (bribe) those in our Government.
David, I think Chuck’s point was that by making the contributions fully anonymous, so that even those given the money did not know who it came from, they could not gain influence over our government. In his model, contributions would not be given directly to the parties, they would be given to the FEC who would then direct them to the appropriate parties. Those receiving the donations would have no knowledge of who had donated the funds, at all.
Posted by: Jarin at July 28, 2005 02:34 AMChuck,
Couldn’t a group tell someone in office they donated large ammounts of cash to have them support their issue anyway?
Wouldn’t it also be used like “cross-over votes” are used in a primary election to screw over the oposing side?…
“Hillary, we donated 100k to your last senate run, you damn sure better move futher left on this issue”
I don’t think either side would like those rules.
Posted by: Beagle at July 28, 2005 07:49 AMJarin, but would that not hide China’s or Iran’s links to funding a particular party which is positioned to aid that foreign nation?
Too, what is to prevent a donor from calling an official or party hdqtrs. and state up front, “You know that check you received for 94,307.41 on dated Aug. 18, is from me, please don’t forget that.”
There are myriad of ways donors could communicate their donations circumventing the anonymity provision. Such a provision would only invite more corruption, not less, all the while reducing public information and accountability.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2005 09:11 AMDavid,
I agree , and posted much the same thing with a few twists.
Posted by: Beagle at July 28, 2005 09:16 AMChuck,
Excellent proposal. I would suggest it be reduced to two statements in order to follow the K.I.S.S. rule:
- All donations shall be from private American citizens, are to be deemed directed, and shall be held anonymously by the FEC.
- No individual donor may contribute more than $1000 per candidate and $50k aggregate per annum.
I might even propose we prohibit contributions to political parties and make donations only to individual candidates. Any centralized organizations would be funded equally by taxes and supported only if they perform sufficiently well in an election cycle (funding would be yes/no only, based on local/state/national levels and not proportional to vote count).
I really like those proposals.
However, I’d like to see the donation amount decreased significantly; otherwise, corporations and the wealthy have more influence than the average person.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 28, 2005 10:09 AM H e a r ! H e a r !
I really like those proposals.
However:
(1) I’d prefer to see the donation amounts decreased significantly; otherwise, corporations and the wealthy have more influence than the average person.
(2) Perhaps, the donations should be kept anonymous? That may be impossible, but it would address the problem of more influence by corporations and the wealthy; i.e. more influence than the average person.
I have to agree with David and Beagle. The process must be transparent.
James Carville came up with a really simple and constitutional solution: No member of Congress can take or solicit anything of value from any person.
That’s it. Period.
The challenger can accept all the campaign contributions he or she wants, but the incumbent gets matching public funds.
As soon as you’re chosen by the people to be a member of Congress, you’re out of the money business. You don’t go near it, you don’t ask for it, you don’t raise it. You just do your job.
Read the whole thing. It’s a pretty elegant solution.
David R. Remer makes a valid point about anonymous donations.
Chuck provides a good solution to that: only private American citizens should be allowed to make donations.
I’d still like to see the limits lower (e.g. never allowed to exceed 50% of the average American annual income; i.e. 50% of $50K = $25K).
I disagree with the notion that money is not the problem.
d.a.n.
I think Chuck was right when he posted that proximity provides the influence. In politics money buys that proximity. Control the money, control the proximity/influence.
Posted by: Dave at July 28, 2005 11:57 AMWith the exception of organized crime donating money to a candidate (I don’t know how you would prove it anyway) I believe that anyone who has money to use for that purpose should be able to donate it.
The wealthy have earned their money and deserve to use it to help a candidate that they favor just as much as the middle or low income person.
I would rather that the media be disqualified from “endorsing” candidates.
Why do you shop at the same place. Because they give you good service, good pricing, they may even run a tab for you. They know your name and, often the names of your family members. If they are very busy, they always find time to work you in. In a sense you have bought their loyalty and they yours. A bribe has been mutually exercised.
I live in a state that has a lottery. I would say that if the middle and low income people would donate a small portion of the money they buy lottery tickets with to help a candidate that sum would dwarf that given by most private individuals and businesses.
Posted by: steve smith at July 28, 2005 12:00 PMChuck:
Very well thought out and well written article…congratulations.
I tend to agree with David Remer on how anonymity would likely increase the corruption, rather than curtail it. If money could truly be made anonymous, even to the recipient, then it would help out. But in the real world, this would never happen. It would simply increase the “wink wink..nudge nudge” conversations at cocktail parties.
I think that if someone gives money, it should be public information. We need to tighten the ability of people to “bundle” moneys together as well.
Money is a problem in politics, and we need to curtail its influence. If we give up a little bit of free speech in the process, then so be it. The net effect will be that the loudest voices (ie the richest donors) will speak a bit more quietly, while many more voices will be able to be heard.
An aside to David Remer: Note how sometimes taking part of a liberty away from someone can benefit the whole. :)
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 28, 2005 12:11 PMDave,
I agree with that part (about proximity), and 99% of what Chuck said. First, I want to say that what Chuck wrote is really good.
I only had a minor disagreement about…
Chuck wrote:
Nevertheless, the point I was making in my post is that it’s not about the money, it’s about the influence.
OK. It’s the influence. But, money buys influence, and therefore, money is at the root of the influence problem. That’s all.
Actually, the true root of the problem is really some people abuse wealth and power to gain unfair influence. And going even deeper, the real roots of the problem are greed, sloth, fear, etc.
At any rate, the point is: for those with little or no money, their influence is smaller. For those with more money, their influence is greater. The two things (money and influence) are inescapably linked and rarely mutually exclusive. Perhaps, I’m just splitting hairs.
But, there must be reasonable limits on the contributions….otherwise, the average person (which makes up the majority of the population) has less influence than the wealthy.
That’s clearly giving rise to an increasingly elitist, irresponsible, unaccountable government, in which 90% of elections are won by the wealthier candidates with the most money, and the main party elitists are blocking the poorer independents and 3rd party candidates from getting on ballots, and we no longer have a government of/for/by the people.
50% of the average American person’s income per year should be ample for any election. Also, the limit is automatically adjusted annually due to inflation. And, only American citizens and 100% owned corporations should be allowed to make contributions. A corporation should also be limited to make a contribution equal to one person. Also, we may need a limit on what an individual can spend on his/her own campaign also. Otherwise, someone with a lot of money (e.g. Ross Perot, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, etc.) could conceivably buy an election (i.e. control the media, news, massive propaganda, limit access to ballots, etc.).
Posted by: d.a.n at July 28, 2005 12:22 PMThere’s no need for anonymity if annual donations are limited only to American citizens and 100% owned corporations, and the limit is 50% of the average American persons annual income, and corporations are limited to a donation equal to one person.
The FEC that Chuck spoke of could confirm that donations don’t exceed the limits, or originate form the same bank accounts, etc.
We’ll never get rid of all graft and corruption, but we can not surrender to it either.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 28, 2005 12:31 PMJBOD, you could look at it as taking a little liberty away, I suppose, if you are Bill Gates. I see it as restoring fairness so that the public has roughly an equal voice in politics, and no voices are denied their liberty to speak if they choose to.
If money is speech, then limiting the amount of money does not limit speech, since speech is still allowed through the vehicle of money. Limiting contributions just denies some voices from drowning out mass numbers of other voices. To me it is just a matter of restoring one person one vote being coupled with each person having equal opportunity to speak and BE HEARD, with money.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2005 02:06 PMA.P.
James Carville’s plan is interesting.
But, giving the incumbent 85% won’t fly. 50% perhaps. And, why give the incumbent that advantage?
But still, Carville’s plan doesn’t remove the unfair advantage of those with vast wealth, because all candidates will still be stooges of the weatlthy. With Carville’s plan, the average American still has a lesser voice and lesser influence, which is still unfair, and still gives rise to an elitist, irresponsible, unaccountable government.
Chuck Hanrahan’s plan (above) is better.
It would limit the total annual amount of any donation to a specific candidate.
The annual amount needs to be lower though and somehow tied to the average annual income (e.g. 50% of the average American annual income).
And, all funds are routed through the FEC, who would keep track of total annual amounts, where they came from, etc.
Also, any excess (if any) could be equally divided between all registered candidates. So, even though direct limits are imposed, there’s really no limit on what would be equally divided between all registered candidates. I’d bet that excess would be minimal.
The only improvement to Chuck’s plan, perhaps, would be to simplify the accounting and simply decrease the annual limit to 50% of the average American’s annual income.
Therefore, even though the wealthy will still probably donate larger sums, there are significantly more average Americans than wealthy Americans. Thus, a more fair balance is achieved, and no changes to the constitution are required.
The only better solution would be to get all money out of the process, but that’s impossible, poses too many constitutional problems, and will never happen.
Unfortunately, it’s all probably futile, because politicians will most likely continue to reject any kind of campaign / election reform. It comes up every election, and nothing ever happens. Instead, the process grows more corrupt every year.
My apologies for being away from the blog until now and thank you for all of the comments (especially the complimentary ones).
First, it is currently illegal for foreign governments or their agents to contribute to candidates for political office or issue organizations. I certainly don’t advocate changing that law, and in fact, if a non-partisan governmental body such as the FEC controlled the disbursement of campaign funds, I would expect the enforcement of this law would improve, not deteriorate. At least we wouldn’t have Vice President Gore soliciting Chinese lobbyists from the White House.
Second, under my proposal, it would become a felony to disclose any campaign contributions in excess of $100 to anyone, especially the recipients of those donations. As far as enforcement is concerned, I would suggest a couple of well-placed and regularly scheduled sting operations. Abscam anyone?
Also, donors could “wink wink, nudge nudge” to their hearts’s content but, in addition to risking prison, there would be no way for the candidate to know if they were telling the truth or not. It would be appreciably easier for me to tell Sen. Clinton that I gave her $100K and not do it than to actually give it to her if she has no way of verifying my claim.
Third, I hadn’t heard about Carville’s proposal, but it sounds similar to my post with two exceptions. First, charitable contibutions are a freedom of speech issue. If I’m a billionaire who supports cancer research, I’m not precluded from showing my approbation by giving any or all of my fortune to a cancer research organization. The influence and access my contribution purchases is ancillary (at least in theory) to the donation itself.
If a system could be implemented whereby the political donor remains anonymous to the recipient, the only difference between political donations and other civic contributions would be those whose very size corrupts the political system itself, not any individual candidate. Limiting campaign contributions is a prior restraint against free speech, as even those SC Justices who upheld McCain-Fiengold agreed. Thus, any self-respecting civil libertairian has to worry about restraints that are too restricitve and/or capricious. After all, as Justice Brandeis said,
“…the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Second, if you look at this issue from the donor’s perspective and not the candidate’s, why should the donor’s ability to fund political speech be restricted more onerously simply because that candidate happens to be an incumbent instead of someone who’s trying to become one. I’m afraid Carville’s proposal would be too discriminatory to pass constitutional muster.
Finally, the last time I read the First Amendment, it mentions free speech, not equal speech. The bar should be raised to preclude only those political contributions that corrupt the democratic process itself, thereby causing, in the words of Justice Holmes, “substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”. Unequal speech is not a substantive evil, it is the natural by-product of a free society.
In closing, I wonder what would happen to campaing funding if the large contirbutions of affluent individuals did not actually buy influence and access. Would large donors be so free with their checkbooks? Would they support the candidates they wanted to instead of the candidates they felt they had to? Would they support only those candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning, as they do today, or more marginal candidates (or none at all) if they knew that their contributions would remain anonymous? If their donations became acts of charity instead of commerce, wouldn’t the political playing field become more level, not less?
I think that it would be interesting to find out.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 28, 2005 04:08 PMHowever, they’ll never reform themselves.
Not without some peaceful force (i.e. start voting ‘em all out, until the do it).
d.a.n.
There are no 100% American owned companies, except for privately held. That’s why I proposed the ban on organized contributions. Businesses have no right fo free speech.
Posted by: Dave at July 28, 2005 09:11 PMChuck said: “First, it is currently illegal for foreign governments or their agents to contribute to candidates for political office or issue organizations.”
And if the money trail were anonymous, the doors would open to foreign powers to donate without fear of being caught. I don’t understand why this simple fact is so hard to accept.
“Also, donors could “wink wink, nudge nudge” to their hearts’s content but, in addition to risking prison, there would be no way for the candidate to know if they were telling the truth or not.”
Wrong! Read my first comment. The odd dollar and cents amount becomes the verifiable detail allowing confirmation of who donated.
“First, charitable contibutions are a freedom of speech issue.”
Only in a binary form, allowed or disallowed. Limiting the amount of contributions is not an abridgement of speech. The speech is still allowed, only the volume and disproportionate influence is regulated. One could limit all contributions to $5, and money as speech is still protected.
As I see it, your goal is right, the methodology needs a bit more work.
Posted by: David R Remer at July 28, 2005 10:15 PMAnd if the money trail were anonymous, the doors would open to foreign powers to donate without fear of being caught. I don’t understand why this simple fact is so hard to accept.
Because if the money is going through the FEC, the FEC (and in this scenario only the FEC) knows who the original donor is, and would police that. Short of the entire FEC itself being bribed by a foreign power, which seems unlikely, how would donating through the FEC and having your identity stripped from the contribution (making it anonymous) before sending it to the recipient open things up to foreign powers donating without fear of being caught?
Also, donors could “wink wink, nudge nudge” to their hearts’s content but, in addition to risking prison, there would be no way for the candidate to know if they were telling the truth or not.Wrong! Read my first comment. The odd dollar and cents amount becomes the verifiable detail allowing confirmation of who donated.
Well that’s very easy to get around: the FEC simply doesn’t hand them individual checks for the exact amount given by individual donors, it saves the money for a week or a month or so and gives it to them as a lump sum. No way of tracing back to the amounts of individual original donations.
Posted by: Jarin at July 29, 2005 12:10 AMJarin, the major flaw in your argument lies in the fact that the FEC is made up of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, representing their parties’s intense desire for money whereever it comes from. We have already seen these two parties wink and nod at each other as they both rail about corruption while grabbing the money with both hands and utterly refusing to hold each other accountable.
It just doesn’t wash. Besides, do you really want to grow the FEC with teams of 100’s of accountants and lawyers taking tax dollars for researching links back to ORIGINAL donors while all the time they understand that they are NOT to find anything that could negatively affect either party?
Politics is dirty, and any crack in system will be exploited. That is why anonymous donations will simply not work. Too many potential workarounds which would subvert any accountability as to who is buying legislation and for what reasons.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 29, 2005 12:51 AMYa know, there are a lot of good campaign finance reform ideas out there. I’m sure the details could be hammered out to everyones satisfaction.
But about every six months I write my representatives and President Bush about campaign finance reform, and the response from all of them is: it’s not an issue that prople are interested in right now (we already did McCain-Feingold), but if someone else submits a good bill, they’ll support it.
Try writing your representatives about it. I’m curious what response you guys get.
Posted by: American Pundit at July 29, 2005 06:57 AMA.P.
Yes, 98% of the ideas (above) would be better than what exists now.
I’m sending Chuck’s plan (above), and this one ( home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/ElectionReform.htm ), with Chuck’s ideas incorporated in it, to Congress.
I do it about once per month (or more frequent); i.e. pick one important issue each month (such as this: Election Reform, or Social Security, Fiscal Responsibility, etc.) and send those ideas to Congress. They don’t always respond, but hopefully, they’re paying some attention?
Senators: senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Representatives: house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Executive Branch: firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml
David,
Guess you’re right about illegal foreign contributions. Hadn’t thought about systemic governmental corruption at the FEC. Perhaps lodging the investigative function within the FBI would make the most sense. It could check on the legitimacy of the sources and enforce the law. Perhaps an occasional sting operation would also ensure that the FEC didn’t play fast and loose with the law.
Could the FBI become corrupted, as well? Certainly, but the existence of corruption does not obviate the necessity of enacting countervailing legislation. Passing laws against murder, rape and theft will not eliminate them; people will always violate social norms. Making any action illegal simply inhibits its occurrence by punishing the perpetrators.
Also, I agree that “politics is dirty” and that any system of campaign funding can be exploited. I think that the point is, however, that corruption should be difficult to accomplish and against the law rather than simple and legal.
To circumvent an anonymous system, both the donor and contributor would have to believe that the reward of political favoritism outweighed the risk of prison. How many political favors are worth going to jail for? At least with an anonymous system, the Vice President couldn’t look at his donor list, assemble them in a room and have them write his energy legislation legally. And the Keating 5 wouldn’t know that their puppetmaster required protection from a federal investigation. It amazes me that more Americans don’t reject these kinds of activities as business as usual and aren’t absolutely incensed that they’re perfectly legal.
Perhaps a religious analogy is appropriate. You believe that your church is catering to the interests of its largest donors. You think that this is unfair to the rest of the congregation, so you organize. Your knee-jerk reaction is to cap the size of donations, but the deacons object and point to a church doctrine that guarantees a “freedom of donation”. What’s the obvious solution? Make the donations truly anonymous. Not does it solve your unfair influence problem; it will help to differentiate between the devout donors and the cynical merchants of dogma.
I simply think that it’s high time that we throw the moneygivers out of our secular temple. Until we build, in Jefferson’s words, a “wall of separation” between money and politics at least as tall and strong as the one between church and state, private parochial influence will remain a commodity to be peddled openly in the halls of Congress.
Nevertheless, the freedom to give must not be constrained unduly. The only solution to these conflicting principles is one that enforces the anonymity of the donor.
This brings me to a difficult point. Your conception of free speech truly frightens me:
“One could limit all contributions to $5, and money as speech is still protected.”Preposterous! Which of our other rights can be apportioned numerically without violating the Constitution? If the average number of church visits per week is X.X, should worshipers be permitted to attend no more that many services? If the average number of newspapers each person reads is X.X per day, should avid readers be precluded from exceeding this amount? If the average number of Watchblog postings is X.X, must contributors be constrained by this quota? Must individual initiative be “dumbed down” to the social mean? If not, why is politics different? I’m afraid you espouse the tyranny of the lowest common denominator.
Face it: regardless of the topic some people care more, have more and do more than others. Although I detest violence, I’m not a particularly religious person, and I don’t attend religious services frequently. But, I’d pick up a gun to defend some else’s right to do so. That’s what living in a free society means to me.
Just because an activity isn’t forbidden doesn’t make it free.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 29, 2005 11:07 AMd.a.n
Much thanks.
This posting is an excerpt of an essay that is available on my web site.
If you’re interested, I’d be happy to send you the full essay in a .pdf format.
(Although they are available for purchase at 99 cents each, I’m not posting on Watchblog to solict business. If you, or anyone else on this blog would like to read the full essay at no cost, please let me know & I will forward it to you gladly.)
(I’ve re-read the “Rules and Guidelines” email I received when I joined, and I hope that this offer does not violate any of them. If it does, please let me know, and I will refrain from doing so in the future.)
The portion on Campaign reform is in an essay on “Governmental Operations”, and the only other major topic in it pertains to the constiutionality of applying a $100K limit to self-funded campaigns. (As you probably know, the SCOTUS ruled that limiting self-funded campaigns was unconstitutional. I disagree.)
In any event, I found the ideas on your site to be quite intriguing, and I agree that something constitutional must be done to restrain or eleminate private influence from public policy.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 29, 2005 11:40 AMActually, after doing some calculations, the donation limit needs to be lowered some more.
Down to about $5K per year (or 10% of the average annual American income).
If the contribution is limited, per year, to 10% of the average annual American income (e.g. 10% of $50K = $5K per year), then there’s really no need to keep donations anonymous, because it won’t matter that much.
Even though the vastly wealthy may contribute more per year than the average American, there will be many more average Americans.
Averaged American wealth levels (for 1998):
Top 1% $10,203,700
Next 4% $1,441,200
Next 5% $623,500
Next 10% $344,900
Next 20% $161,300
Next 20% $61,000
Next 20% $11,000
Last 20% -$8,900 (in debt)
About 122 million people voted in the last 2004 presidiential election.
Therefore, lets say about 5% of the American population are wealthy. Also, most wealthy people vote.
5% of 280 million Americans = 14 million wealthy
43% (122 million) of all 280 Americans voted in the 2004 Presidential election.
43% - 5% = 37% = 45 million people of average to low income levels
Say the 37% of average-to-low-income Americans donate an average of $1600:
$1600 x 45 million = $72 billion (more than enough for any campaign)
Say the 5% of the wealthy all donate the maximum of $5K:
$5K x 14 million = $70 billion
Therefore, the playing field is now more even, and the wealthy don’t have such an extreme unfair advantage, and politicians better not cater only to the very wealthy.
Chuck,
Thanks!
I’ve seen your site.
I wanted to buy the entire PDF, but I’m getting an error: “The page cannot be displayed”
I’d like to buy the entire PDF (e.g. you have a PayPay account?)
d.a.n
Thanks for the heads up. Contacted my host & discovered a “DNS error.” It’s been fixed but I’ve been told it will take a day or two before the site is accessible.
Will send you an email when I’m sure it’s functioning properly.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 29, 2005 04:53 PMAP,
Believe it or not, I like James Carvil.
I may not agree with his opinions on all the issues, but I enjoy his southern wit and humor.
He would make a far better leader for the DNC than Dean.
Posted by: Beagle at July 31, 2005 12:21 PMIf you really want to help the Democratic party, make James Carville the DNC leader, and let Paul Begala, and Howard Dean help.
: )
Check out a critique of Chuck’s proposal
Posted by: Matt Johnston at August 2, 2005 03:11 PMA lot of criticism of Chuck’s proposal, but no proposed recommendations or alternatives ?
I agree with Chuck that one (or more) amendment changes are needed. The question is how to accomplish that when the current system benefits the relatively few that abuse wealth and power; a little over two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees ?
The question is: How do you force government to do anything? Just vote better, or vote for someone better? Naaah. That ain’t workin’.
There may be a way; a peaceful way to balance power (not simply shift it) between the people and government. It may also be difficult, and unlikely, but not as unlikely as government reforming itself. What is it? All it needs is the one thing each voter already has, and should use responsibly, the only thing that provides the peaceful force required to make government responsible and accountable too: their vote
VOTE only for a NON-incumbent / NON-main-party candidate. NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election. UNTIL things drastically improve (i.e. until a few, no-brainer requests are implemented).
If that requires a few Constitutional changes, then so be it.
Isn’t bribery wrong? Then, why do we allow our government to be bribed? Whey should it be legal? At the very least, why should it not be regulated, so that the voice of the few that abuse wealth and power don’t have an unfair advantage over the average, larger majority?
The Constitution is not written in stone.
There have been previous Constitutional changes.
What’s wrong with some more, if they’re necessary, beneficial, violate no one’s rights, and protect the rights of all?
Matt,
Thank you for taking the time to critique my proposal so thoroughly. If you’ll indulge me, I’d like to address some of the issues you raised.
First, by “proximity” I didn’t mean the physical proximity of public officials to their contributors as individuals. Instead, I meant the proximity of the act of contributing money (the “speech”) to its intended recipient (the “audience”). Officials and/or candidates would remain entirely free to associate with their donors physically without any restrictions whatsoever; they would simply be precluded from discussing or transacting campaign funding activities in excess of $100. The freedom of association would not be restricted, the freedom to treat public policy issues as private commercial transactions would be.
Second, I believe that restrictions on the acceptance of funds from political supporters by public officials and candidates do exist. In fact I believe that this restricted activity is called “graft”. (Just think, if Spiro Agnew had taken those envelopes full of cash and stuck them in his campaign war chest instead of his pocket, he’d have been president thirty years ago instead of Jerry Ford. Would Agnew have pardoned Nixon? Would Reagan have beaten Agnew for the nomination in 1976? Would Carter have beaten either of them? Could Carter/Mondale have beaten Agnew/Reagan? Where would George W. Bush be today? The mind boggles. Oh well.) I simply believe that the tacit quid pro quo of exchanging votes for campaign contributions must become as reprehensible and illegal as the active quid pro quo of exchanging votes for personal contributions.
Next, I apologize for my political naivite’, but your argument about whether voting precipitates donations or visa versa seems a bit like a “chicken or egg” discussion. Does money influence voting? Does voting influence money? The answer to both questions is “Yes,” but both are immaterial. Either way, narrow special interests influence the resolution of public policy issues. It’s the influence that’s pernicious, regardless of whether or not the solicitation of the money that precipitates it is active or passive.
Moreover, under my proposal, public officials could continue to cater to special interests, but they would be precluded from ascertaining who their large contributors were and how much each contributed. For example, if I voted to open a Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and got a lot of money in my campaign account from the FEC shortly thereafter, I could assume that I got more money from the folks at Exxon than those at the Sierra Club. But, and I believe that this is crucial, my belief would be based upon an assumption, not a fact, and I would be ignorant of exactly who gave me what. In short, this is the ideal form of representative democracy: uncertain of the ramifications of their actions, our representatives would be compelled to predicate their votes upon their consciences and then either reap the financial rewards or suffer the monetary consequences subsequently.
Finally, I am unaware of any systemic incompetence on the part of the FEC. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that if the FEC was responsible for disbursing funds to the candidates, I am certain that Congress would apportion the financial resources required to perform this function thoroughly and accurately. Moreover, since it monitors campaign contributions currently, I can’t believe that simply transferring the funds from private to public entities would necessitate a substantial expansion in the commission’s funding or staffing. Lastly, as I noted in subsequent comments after I posted my article, I would require the FEC to involve the FBI in investigative and enforcement issues.
I hope that the preceding points mollify your concerns somewhat, and I would be interested in any additional observations that you might have.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 3, 2005 03:14 PMChuck, I think it’s a good plan.
There’s always someone that will pick any plan to pieces, and their arguments are valid if you have zero honesty, zero common-sense, and zero integrity.
But, we can not throw up our hands, say nothing is perfect, can not resign to the futiltiy of trying (which is the lazy, complacent path).
While laziness and futility are human tendencies, it is immoral to surrender to them.
So, you are correct to continue, despite the nay-sayers (especially those that merely criticize and don’t offer a better way), devise and implement plans and improvements cognizant of some negative human psychological tendencies, build in checks-and-balances, increase transparency, and restrict behavior that is obviously illegal (e.g. graft, bribery, government for sale, etc.).
Beware of those that twist, use, and abuse Constitutional Amendments to empower them to use and abuse others.
And, the Constitution is not written in stone.
Some changes may be required to stop those that twist, use, and abuse it to use and abuse others.
