Al Franken wrote a guest piece for the Huffington Post this morning where he calls for the public financing of elections.
Let me select a totally random example: Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman (R-PHARMA). In the first fundraising quarter this year, he raised around $1.5 million. About a third of that came from PACs — tobacco, coal, insurance, etc. Over the course of his career, he’s taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Oil and Big Pharma. And, of course, he voted in favor of that horrible drug bill and that horrible energy bill…
But the sad truth is, if you can’t raise the money, you can’t make your case. That’s why I keep Kris [ed: his call enforcer, read the article] around. But forcing candidates to spend their time and energy dialing for dollars instead of engaging with citizens cheats candidates and voters alike.”
His point is well taken. With a net worth of +/- 5M dollars, Franken couldn’t even self finance a competitive House race (it feels kind of absurd to write that) let alone a Senate race that will see the candidates spend somewhere north of 20M dollars, not counting the GDP sized fortunes interest groups and the national parties will sink into the race.
The preeminent influence that money has in campaigns is a bipartisan problem, and any solutions that could help reinvigorate our Democracy should get an honest and fair shake by Republicans and Democrats.
Loading ...
While I applaud efforts to crate a system of elections that is a truer representation of the populace I have doubts about public financing. As a concept the idea of those already in power regulating the terms under who gets to be a viable candidate and therefore be allowed to run is troublesome. My guess is that any system that comes out of Washington would so favor the two major parties it would create a de facto system for ever abolishing any other viewpoints.
Also unless the system would regulate the views expressed in the media it would cause those interested in gaining influence to purchase media outlets with the expressed purpose of advancing their viewpoints. Think Fox News but much much worse.
Those that desire to have influence in Washington or St. Paul will find a way through any regulatory system. They always have before and do so in countries that have systems different than ours. Reducing the power and scope of government will reduce corruption and influence pedaling proportionally and is the only surefire way to do so.
Campaign money buys access, pure and simple. And If you’re part of the K street project you get write legislation for the Republican leadership to bring to the floor. PHARMA bought the restriction on Medicare negotiating drug prices with campaign contributions and the promise of lobbying jobs to key committee chairs and staff.
There is an old saying that “you get the government you pay for” and right now, and for the last twenty years, corporate america has gotten it’s money’s worth.
I mention on my blog today:
Rick,
What has billionaire financier (and indicted in France) George Soros purchased with his campaign donations in the tens of millions of dollars last cycle?
Public financing of elections sucks. It favors incumbents for one thing. And I don’t want my tax dollars going to people I don’t want to elect. The answer is to lift limits and strictly enforce disclosure. It’s called free speech — I thought liberals were for free speech (I guess they are only when you’re speaking out against the President, our policies or selling gangster rap albums or NAMBLA web sites).
SenateGuru:
it’s funny you should say that because Al did write exactly that in USA Today: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/elections_too_c.html
Public financing of elections is not perfect either, but one thing for damn sure: Tax-payer funded elections are better than corporately funded elections. Everybody should get equal money and equal media funds. That would create a real debate in this country. We are one of the very few, if not the only, industrialized country that does not have publicly funded elections, and our actual voting system is one of the least democratic and certainly the least representative in the first world. If interested, readers should check out the German voting system as a model for a truly democratic method of picking our leaders.
Everybody should get equal money? Who is everybody? Who decides who gets funds? Does this mean that political speech will be regulated and isn’t that the speech most important to protect? Nobody has good answers to these questions only complaints about the current system, mainly because their views don’t always dominate. How they will deal with media outlets that become more and more polarized as interest groups buy them up to ensure they have an outlet for their message. In the end as long as elected officials have the power to distribute vast amounts of money and regulate nearly every action people make there will be motivation to sway their votes and those with the power will find a way to do so. Sometimes you make like the result other times it might mean a disastrous war.
Democracy is a delicate system and we need to be very careful about giving elected officials complete power over how they can be challenged for office. How would people here feel if there had been public financing before the Republicans gained complete control of the house senate and oval office? They would have had the power to shift the campaign financing to benefit people with their views to ensure a Republican majority for eternity. With the help of places like MoveOn.org and others the outrage the population felt was heard. Our democratic republic is about defending the rights of the minority to be loud and obnoxious not just ensure majority rule.
Remember that the power you give somebody else can at some point be used against you. Look at the Iraq vote before the war, our country is paying for that every day and will be for decades to come.
By “everybody”, I of course mean all the candidates. I am no legal scholar, nor do I claim to have the answer to all questions relating to how we go about choosing which candidates get the funding. Actually, right now every candidate who gathers enough signatures to actually be a candidate has access to public money. That’s not a bad system, only it means absolutely nothing in the face of the massive private money that screws the chances for anyone who isn’t independently wealthy. You know this stuff, come on.
The big point I was trying to make is that limiting the amount of private money used in a campaign creates a much more level playing field, something that must be present if there is to be a level debate. These days, everything is done is seconds long sound-bytes, because real political discourse cannot make it through all of the commercials on television. At least we have the Internet, which is indeed having a very democratic effect on things if you ask me.
Again, just some food for thought. What do you propose in order to bring about more representative elections and campaigns that we can be confident are not unjustly bolstered Kerosene Hat?
Veritas, you really are pathetic. I hope you someday learn how to exist without the need to be the lemon juice in everyone else’s cuts. Wow, you even draw out the weird analogies I have never used before.
I wish you less anguish, but alas, you may never be happy, just full of hatred for all those who are not sheep like you.
Chris,
Feel free to provide links to George Soros’ indictment. Te He.
To me the only solution is less government power to direct and influence every part of our lives. Corruption and influence peddling is directly proportional to the power of government and little else. If government can not grant favors to corporations then corporations will not try to influence government. If it is difficult for the government to raise taxes, borrow money or draft soldiers it will go to war only as a last result. The more we ask government to do the more power we give it.
Corruption is a corollary to power, always has been and always will be. For years we have had laws that restrict speech in order to reduce influence and none of them have had any real effect other than to act as a smoke screen for politicians that want to look like reformers. Public financing would not be any different.
I think you make some great points there KH. One thing: there will always be a concentration of power somewhere. If not in some kind of government apaartus, than in the strongest and most successful individuals. I think it is a myth that we can have some kind of Darwinist economic system (pretty close to what we have now) and a government that does not wield influence upon it. I am a believer in the basic theory that the role of government is to ensure - to the best of its capability - against tyranny of the minority. Unfortunately our form of government does nothing of the sort, simply because it and its demos lives under a constant tyranny of the bottom line.
This is probably the most important debate in political and social philosophy - the struggle between equality of condition and so-called equality of opportunity. I believe the later to be impossible without the former. That might be our disconnect. However, if those who are in power can be recalled by those not in power - with a true majority vote - at any time, we may be able to change the corollary you talk about.
In the end, I am about as optimistic as you are about whether or not the United States will get there. That said, I have lived in countries where the level of equality AND opportunity are leaps and bounds more in sync than they are here. The difference in those countries is that there are a relatively very few millionaires. Dig?
The relative level of equality a country’s economic system employs dictates exactly how democratic its politics will be, historically anyway. Either way, I believe in what Jefferson (was it Jefferson?) said, that we should have a revolution every few decades, or something to that affect. :)
A35,
Good points and I definitely understand that viewpoint. For me though government is the ultimate danger. Only they have the power of the courts, jails and legal use of force to impose their will. I would say that while many countries have more level systems we could very well soon see many of their welfare base systems strain to the point of breaking in the near future European populations are changing and competition from places like China, India and others will reduce their ability to keep industries trapped within their boarders paying high taxes.
I could get behind creating a floor for people to insure a basic healthy life rather than a cap on how wealthy one can become. It would in the end allow for the basic needs of most everyone while not removing incentive to create and produce. I’m not as worried about the gap between rich and poor as much as providing the very basics for everybody and then allowing life to happen without to much interference.
In the end the old saying, Franklin or not, of how those that give up an essential liberty to gain temporary security deserve neither security or liberty applies to economic security as well as things like the patriot act. Any way, public financing will complete the institutionalization of current two party system and reduce the number of opinions being heard.
Wow, again, very good points. Lots to chew on. I’m impressed with your ability to appeal to the idea of providing a basic cushion for all citizens, and still allowing the market to do what it does best. That is something very few marketeers can even muster the courage to say. I agree, in that markets essentially kill themselves off after a certain point in time without a certain amount of control. The last stage of unregulated capitalism is oligarchy.
I also agree that it is not the separation of the rich and poor that is necessarily the problem, as much as the fact that there are so many who live at or below the poverty line in this country, versus those who live so damn far above it. One could also ask how that cushion could be established without effectively putting a cap on just how wealthy an American can get.
I still think a limit on how much a candidate can spend on his or her election is good, and that limiting spending is not limiting free speech. Perhaps a combination of public financing, which is already there in small measure, and a cap on campaign spending, would be a better option than totally public financing. I’m not sure, but willing to investigate.
Anything is better that the crap we have going on now. If we had a more realistic system of voting, like they have in Germany, we might not even have to have this conversation actually.