Democracy?

October 12, 2007 8:18 AM

I want to understand campaign finance laws. In the US, abroad, and in theory.

The more I learn about the current state of the US, the more I'm inclined to believe that money in politics is truly the root of all evil. I'd say that campaign contributions and the 'government industry revolving door' are two of the most serious problems, but perhaps there are even worse problems. In any case, money isn't speech. So what can we do?

How do other countries deal with these issues? If they have (somewhat) successful laws in place, how did they get there? (I ask because it seems naive to think that the very people the status quo helps so much would change it voluntarily.)

I'm sure scholars have tackled this. What are some possible solutions? Publicly financed campaigns, sure, but what else? Has anyone written model legislation for this?

Books, studies, websites, causes you recommend? I've been to Common Cause, but while I agree with a lot of what they support, they seem a bit unfocused.

posted by zazerr to law & government (5 comments total)

P.S. I'm aware that the 'government industry revolving door' I referred to isn't actually CFR, but you know what I mean.

Basically, I'm interested in forcing politicians to act ethically and not to care quite so much what rich people and corporations want.
posted by zazerr at 8:23 AM on October 12, 2007

Based on my experience & observations I'd say we need a combination of publicly-financed campaigns and a more politically-active & -engaged citizenry. I would include in the latter higher rates of union membership.

As for actual reform legislation, here is Proposition 89, a california ballot initiative that went down in flames last year.

You may have already seen the Wikipedia entry on Clean Elections, which has links to the Maine & Arizona laws (Maine & Arizona provide public financing for state races).

There was also a PBS "Now" episode about a year ago exploring the Maine & Arizona experiences.

Incidentally, I was just watching the Daily Show interview with Bill Clinton the other day, & he stated that he would support public financing of campaigns, with a component of reform being discounted television advertising rates.
posted by univac at 9:55 AM on October 12, 2007

I don't know that I'd agree with your statement that money isn't speech. It seems to me to be a clear form of political expression. There is, at the very least, a case to be made and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It's reasonable to be annoyed at corporations and interest groups that are influencing our government but something like public funding of campaigns seems like it would severely restrict the political speech of corporations and private citizens alike.
posted by MasterShake at 10:09 AM on October 12, 2007

In my opinion, the only solution to this is a) more public interest, and b) better journalism.

Journalists today love to eat what the pols are feeding them (from both sides) and even when they do some actual journalism, citizens care too little to do anything about it.

You can't get rid of the corruption, all you can do is get rid of the corrupt, and that won't happen until more people start both figuring out who is too corrupt to hold office and start voting on those ideas.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:08 PM on October 12, 2007

The more I learn about the current state of the US, the more I'm inclined to believe that money in politics is truly the root of all evil. I'd say that campaign contributions and the 'government industry revolving door' are two of the most serious problems, but perhaps there are even worse problems. In any case, money isn't speech.

I would urge you to reconsider these assumptions. First, I would suggest that the root of all evil is not money, it is corruption. Let me explain:

This is a representative government. The function of the representative is to do what is in the best interest of those represented. Thus, the system is faulty only if the represented is "corrupted" from this task and does something that is not in the best interest of the polity. When the Supreme Court has looked at this, that has been a common theme. "Corruption" is the threat to a representative government so much so that even the appearance of corruption is a threat. The question then becomes whether money automatically causes corruption. That surely cannot be the case. Suppose there was an issue about disposal of nuclear waste in a county. Such is clearly bad for the polity and 100% of the polity is opposed to it. Would the system be corrupt if the representative voted against the policy and accepted donations from an environmental group? No. The system would have worked. The only problem is if there is actual corruption. There mere accepting of the money is not a problem.

In fact, corruption can frequently occur because of influence on votes moreso than money. If I am advocating The World's Most Disapproved Of Idea, all the money in the world isn't going to get me what I want. I won't be able to corrupt the system. But look at a union: they can get a representative to change their mind by merely threatening to vote for the other guy. Corrupting influence can occur without money by leveraging votes.

The point I am getting at is that the true problem is corruption, not money per se. So the issue should be framed in how to eliminate corruption since the elimination of money will not end corruption.

Second, I'd also ask you to reconsider that money is not speech, at least in the First Amendment context. Consider the history and basis for the First Amendment. The First Amendment was not designed to protect people's right to say things. It was designed as a way to protect the marketplace of ideas or "political speech" because people must have the ability to influence the marketplace of ideas if we are going to have a government that is "of the people and by the people." So what is political speech? It is anything that effects the marketplace of ideas. How is money not considered the same to verbal speech? Money can effect the marketplace of ideas.

Or to put it another way: what is the distinction between you standing on the street corner advocating for X and me paying to have every billboard in the country carry an advertisement for X? The only effect would be to alter policy viewpoints, which is the point of political speech. And that is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect. Or another way: if you are a great orator who can be very persuasive and I have a debilitating stutter, should I deprived of the protection of the First Amendment if I elect to promote my views by way of paying for advertisements while you give a masterful oration? I doubt anyone would say yes.

Thus, I ask you to strongly question whether you truly accept that the First Amendment only protects those that vocalize the policy goals. And I ask to consider whether there is a legitimate place for money in our system. I would submit it is protected and the goal should be how eliminate corruption and not money.

So what can we do?

There are certainly lots of theories. I will suggest one: full disclosure. Light is the great disinfectant.

If we know (a) what the issue is; (b) what is in the best interest of the polity; (c) how the representative voted; and (d) which groups attempted to influence the positions, then we can spot the corruption. Group X advocated the position (whether by money or votes or whatever) and the Representative voted that way contrary to the interest of the polity, then we know there is corruption. How to fix it you ask? Regularly held elections. The next time the corrupt scumbag runs for election, you vote for their opponent.

Full disclosure and regularly held elections can work to eliminate corruption.

I'm sure scholars have tackled this. What are some possible solutions? Publicly financed campaigns, sure, but what else? Has anyone written model legislation for this?

Publicly financed elections don't eliminate corruption; again, look at the case study of "I'll deliver X votes if you vote my way on Issue Y." Moreover, publicly-financed elections have the unintended consequence of actually increasing incumbency rates. The studies bare this out. Consider that an incumbent has a built in advantage of name recognition: if you equal the playing field, the opponent is at a disadvantage of over-coming the advantage. If we are in a 100 meter race and you have a 20 meter head start, but we have to run at the same speed, I'm not going to win. Spending money to get a message out is how one can overcome the name recognition gap.

But publicly funded elections also implicate the idea behind the first amendment: if I want to help get you get elected because you will advocate my policy preferences, why should I not be able to help you get your message out?

From the states that have tried the "clean elections models', it is not clear that public funding eliminates corruption and has serious downsides.

Books, studies, websites, causes you recommend? I've been to Common Cause, but while I agree with a lot of what they support, they seem a bit unfocused.

I would suggest you read more than one side of the equation. Anytime you get your info only from one side, its likely incomplete.

I would suggest reading the works of the following political scientists:

Richard Hasen is a guy who will make sense to you if you are stuck on believing that which you asserted in your question and he writes this excellent blog. If you want a well-reasoned contrary view, I would recommend a book by Bradley Smith called Unfree Speech or this article.

Some of the better political scientists I have read on CFR are Anthony Corrado, Nelson Polsby, and Frank Sorauf. You can find articles by them on the internet. Dworkin has written criticisms of Buckley v. Valeo. I'd recommend Professor Volokh.

If you get anything from my comment, I'd hope you take from it that the issues are complex and the considerations important. The view that campaign donations are "the root of all evil" and that the system will be fixed when they end is a facile and short-sighted view, and anyone who says only that without considering the tradeoffs isn't worth listening to. Read all the views and think about what the goal is and whether a particular view is the least obtrusive way to meet that goal.
posted by dios at 1:31 PM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]