Solution: Campaign Finance Reform

My last post illustrated the problem of campaign finance reform and how money seems to be pervasive throughout our system with no end in sight. The American people deserve better. They deserve a system which encourages informed public participation in the election process. They deserve a system which keeps reasonable checks on corruption without unreasonable restrictions on their First Amendment rights. The American people deserve a system which will put the power of Democracy back into the hands of the people, and out of the hands of the special interests.

I'm not a hard liner on either side of the spectrum. I believe that every interest should be able to make their case to politicians. Every interest whether it is big oil, big pharma, PETA, human rights, lawyers, the environmentalists, or any others deserve their shot at influencing the government. However, their influence should not be in the form of money. Their influence should be in the form of policy solutions proposed to their legislators. I believe in equal opportunity for Americans, a group of 5,000 environmentalists should get the same opportunity to be heard as a group of 5,000 employees in the oil industry. The will of the people should trump the will of campaign contributions. After all, votes should matter, not money. So the question becomes, how do we create a system which is a balanced approach which gives people the right to influence their government but eliminates corruption or the appearance of corruption?

Remember that when Halliburton donates millions to the Bush campaign and gets billions in no-bid defense contracts, whether or not there is corruption, the appearance of corruption exists and as such our democracy is undermined. Some have proposed public financing of elections to eliminate this problem. While this is a noble suggestion, it simply cannot work because there is no way to figure out who gets how much money and how. Others have suggested lowering the contribution limit to a paltry $50 or $100. While this is yet another great sounding idea, it simply will not create candidates that have the majority of America's interests in mind. An example is Pat Robertson in 1988 who collected over 80% of his donations in sums under $250 but yet he represented a segment of the population which is no greater than 20%. Furthermore, many good candidates simply cannot raise that kind of money that quickly. They need seed investments to get their campaign off the ground and to make sure their message is heard. While public financing and lower contribution limits sound good, they are not true solutions because they don't help us elect candidates that the majority of America would support. Furthermore, limiting people's contributions in such a way really is a burden on their free speech rights, regardless of what the latest Supreme Court case may say about it. There is however, a better approach.

The Campaign Finance Reform Solution

1) Eliminate Bundling - Bundling is the practice of one individual gathering 100 or 200 checks of $2,000 each or more and presenting them to the candidate. For example, the Bush team calls those who raise more than $200,000 rangers and in fact they track the amount of money each candidate raises. This is probably what leads to such an appearance of corruption. 50 of the 64 Rangers have received Ambassadorships or other high level administration positions. Their companies also get the bulk of federal contracts from defense to construction. We can chalk all this up to coincidence, but the American people are not buying it. Eliminating bundling does not prevent anyone from donating money, it does not prevent people from exercising their free speech rights or their freedom of association. It simply cracks down on corruption and the appearance of corruption.

2) Democracy Dollars Accounts for Federal Candidates - While taking the bundling route is a safer alternative, the Democracty Dollars Accounts(DDA) is downright revolutionary. I'm not sure if it has been proposed before but the idea may save our campaign finance system. Currently checks from individuals go straight to candidates. I'm not suggesting that $2,000 will buy a candidate's support, if it did, we would be in much bigger trouble than we had thought. However, 100 donations from an energy companies employees sent to the candidate can certainly be considered substantial. DDA would be accounts managed by the Federal Government but owned by the candidate. The only difference is that checks would be sent to the DDA in the name of the candidate, the name of the donor(s) would never be disclosed to the candidate. What this does is it allows donors to donate as much money as they like to federal candidates. I would be in support of lifting the legal limit to $5,000 or perhaps even $10,000 per individual. This would allow Democrats and Republicans to raise money but that money would be contributed anonymously to the candidates. This way, the energy executives can have their freedom of speech and their freedom of association. They can even write letters to the Republican party telling them how much money they have raised for them. Fortunately for Americans, there is no way for the Republican Party, or for that matter the Democratic Party to verify that those executives actually contributed the money that they claimed they did. If necessary, that information could be obtained at the end of every 4 years, or of course those donations could remain anonymous. Anonymous donations and the inability for any politican to track who has donated what sum of money eliminate the look and feel of corruption. Under DDA , PAC's could contribute to candidates as well but these contributions too would be anonymouse. Of course DDA would have to be managed by a non partisan commission, perhaps one appointed by Congress which would function something like the FEC but hopefully with more effectiveness. DDA protects free speech by still allowing for PAC's, independent expenditures and lobbying of Congress by all kinds of groups. However, that lobbying will no longer be backed up through donations in the millions. This provides all groups an equal opportunity. Groups which have a larger base and more support amongst the people of America will be able to write more letters, and lobby in other ways so as to advance their views. DDA takes money out of the equation and through that it puts ordinary people back into the process of politics.

DDA is not perfect, there are no doubt concerns. One such concern is the possibility of corruption within the DDA agency. However, much like we have poll watchers at elections, both parties can send their own officials to make sure that the DDA is not making any mistakes in allocation of funds. Furthermore, each party can request a full accounting of donations which have been received. There is no doubt that with added bureaucracy there is potential for problems. However, much like the IRS functions, with the appropriate checks and balances DDA could be an incredible success. We must put checks and balances on the special interests in America but we must also keep proper checks on the government to make sure they do not intrude on the liberties of any of our citizens. Democracy Dollars Accounts offer an alternative which will reform our political system while giving opportunity to all citizens regardless of their wealth to make a difference in our country.

Comments

[Derek Cressman]

You are thinking about this all wrong. I've posted a response here:

http://fortherestofus.blogspot.com/archives/2004_03_01_fortherestofus_archive.html#108066578890243846

[Ruchit K. Shah]

Well to begin with, I would have liked to have been able to comment on your blog but it seems to be disabled. However, on policy, I think you're wrong for several reasons.

1) The whole idea of special interests is that there is a connection between the amount of money someone donates and the policy that they get in return. The underlying assumption is that the politician knows who is giving them money and how much money they are giving them and as a result they favor policy, not because of their own views, but rather because of the influence of money in their elections.

2) The way to solve that problem, don't let them know who their contributors are. At this point, politicians run on what they believe or rather what the polls tell them to believe, either way, its closer to democracy than what we have today.

3) The way politics works in Washington is simple, before you meet with someone, you find out how much money they have donated to you, how much they have donated to the opposition, and of course what they have said about you publicly. Depending on these three factors, this is what influences your thought on policy.

Take money out of the equation, and your conscience can play a much bigger role. Perhaps the biggest role would be played by a thought process that goes something like this, "If I vote for this bill, what will my constituents think, and will they re-elect me? Is it in their best interest? If its not, then its not in my best interest."

[D. Frank Robinson]

I really appreciate your comments. See if you think they parallel mine at the URL above.

best regards,

dfr

[D. Frank Robinson]

www.geocities.com/dfrank_robinson

Try that!