Topic: Government's Responsibilities
A More Sensible Approach To Campaign Finance Reform The current Federal campaign finance laws (not to mention state and local laws) are currently framed so that incumbents are almost impossible to defeat and third parties have virtually no chance of winning. Changing campaign finance laws to put the responsibility where it belongs could be a giant step toward changing this situation.by Walt Thiessen
(Libertarian)
Saturday, September 22, 2007
A readers' discussion underneath another article on this website touched upon campaign finance and the problems the current law has created. That discussion led me to think that perhaps it's time I put up a proposal for campaign finance reform that is consistent not only with libertarian principles but also succeeds in placing limits on the ability of corporate money to buy the influence of political officeholders.
First, let me take a moment to itemize some of the worst aspects of current campaign finance law in conjunction with other election laws:
Individual campaign contributions are currently limited to $2,300 per candidate per individual contributor, in my opinion an unconstitutional limit placed on individuals.
Corporate campaign contribution limits (including union limits) are much higher than individual limits. How much higher depends upon one's ability to wade through Federal law in order to figure it out.
Political committees (PACs) are granted higher contribution limits than individuals.
The U.S. Code Title 2, Chapter 14, Subchapter 1 DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS is so confusing that it requires a team of attorneys to figure out exactly what it says, and it's only one portion of Federal law in regard to elections and financing.
Campaign finance laws were initially passed in an attempt to reign in lobbying influence by wealthy contributors. The net result of these laws is that low and middle income contributors have less influence than they did before the laws were written, while large contributors have more influence than ever before.
There are no real penalties against lawmakers who accept funds from contributors who also lobby the same lawmakers for certain legislation after they're elected.
Ballot access laws for Federal elections are not uniform from state to state and are generally deliberately written to the disadvantage of third parties.
The morass of Federal red tape required by election laws is designed and intended primarily to protect incumbents.
Incumbents are empowered to gerrymander Congressional district boundaries which maximizes the chance that incumbents will continue to get elected.
Election laws effectively prevent candidates who are not loaded with money from competing effectively without being willing to sell out their beliefs in order to gain favor with one of the two major political parties.
Okay, enough of the lowlights. What can be done about this state of affairs? The typical libertarian reply is to scrap the entire set of laws. I would normally favor that, except that I don't think it goes far enough.
So let's take a closer look at the above list. First, we have to recognize that no form of campaign finance reform is going to address points #7 & 9. Except for #6, the rest are merely manifestations of the existing law, which is counterproductive and needs to be discarded. Instead, let's focus on point #6. The fact is that current election law penalizes the wrong people. It's not the lobbyists or the campaign donors who are at fault for corruption in Congress. It's the Congressional Senators and Representatives themselves (plus the President) who are responsible for their own corruptibility!
I propose that we scrap all of the current campaign finance laws and replace them with one, single law. The law would basically state the following: any elected Federal official who accepts any financial campaign contribution from corporate donors, whether directly or indirectly by funneling the money through corporate officers and representatives, and who then votes for legislation that favors that corporation must immediately be impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office. Any Representative who refuses to vote for impeachment in such cases would himself be subject to impeachment by the same law. If the case is egregious enough, the former official should also face prison. No similar restrictions would be placed, however, on contributions from individuals, except when that individual is helping to funnel corporate funds. Appropriate penalties would also apply to the corporation that tries to funnel its funds through an individual to get around the law.
The benefits of this approach are as follows:
(1) Individual rights of real people (as opposed to fictional people, i.e. corporations) would be restored in regard to campaign contributions. If some individual wants to give a million dollars to a campaign, he can do so without restriction, provided that he isn't funneling corporate funds. Also, there would no longer be reporting requirements for individuals, restoring privacy to this realm.
(2) Responsibility would ultimately rest on the elected Federal official, as it should have done all along, rather than on the donor. If we think about it for a moment, it becomes obvious that the current approach really doesn't make any sense. Holding the donor accountable for the actions of the legislator is absurd.
(3) Corporate influence on campaigns would be severely restricted.
Critics of this approach would name two primary disadvantages:
(1) The wealthy will still have heavy influence over legislators in their roles as individuals.
(2) None of this would guarantee that incumbents would be defeated.
Both criticisms are valid. On the other hand, what is there to lose? Currently, under existing campaign finance law, the wealthy already have inordinate influence not only over campaign finance but as a result of that law over which wealth classes may even successfully put up a candidate! Current law has effectively protected incumbents' interests, despite the fact that the opposite was intended by some proponents. At some point we have to be willing to admit that no amount of legislation will ever significantly reduce or eliminate the influence of the wealthy over politics. Instead, our focus should be on restoring the ability of the non-wealthy to participate while insuring that elected Federal officials are held personally accountable for their actions, something the current law does not generally accomplish.
For those who claim that corporations have rights, I disagree. Corporations are fictional persons under the law. Does that mean they should have the same rights as real individuals? I say that they shouldn't. Corporations should be inferior to individuals; they should be our servants, not our masters. They should not be equals, let alone superiors as they are under current law. Whenever there is a conflict, corporate rights should be subservient to individual rights. In fact, corporate rights should not even be a valid term. Corporations should have no rights at all. Individuals within corporations should and do have rights. Those rights are sufficient to protect corporate interests.
Reducing the status of corporations within society is a reasonable price to pay for the limits on liability that corporations gain as a benefit under law. And if it leads to changes in law that encourage corporations to stop being corporations and start being true, free market companiese without resorting to limited liability, so much the better. Of course, a lot of existing law will have to be rewritten in order to accomplish this transition, which is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, this overall philosophy is the one our society should seek to promote. And I can say that as an owner of four LLCs myself!
I readily admit that this reform proposal will not fix most of the problem. It only amounts to a small step forward, and yet, it would be an important step, because it would establish the precedent that wherever corruption in government of elected officials is concerned, it is the elected official who should be held primarily responsible for that corrupting influence, not those who would attempt to buy him off. If an elected official cannot maintain a discrete delineation between what corporate lobbyists want and what his or her role as representative is, he or she shouldn't be permitted to retain that seat. Period.
Of course, getting such a piece of legislation passed would first require the replacement of the entire Congress and Senate, but that's a good and necessary idea anyway, regardless of what happens with this issue. I also readily admit that the above proposal is not the end-all and be-all of election reform. Instead, I offer it for the purpose of getting the discussion started, rather than as an attempt to have the final word.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, September 22, 2007
Last modified: Saturday, September 22, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-22 21:20:20
The best idea for Campaign Finance Reform I have heard of was by Allan Keyes: If you can not enter a voting booth and vote, no donations. That eliminates corperations, pacs, etc. No limites on donations which means free speech.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-23 03:42:31
Gary: Keyes' approach is interesting, but I don't believe it stands up to reality. Children under age 18 also can't enter a voting booth to vote either, under the law. Should they then be barred from making donations?
Personally, I believe children should have the right to vote. They should have a lot of rights that are denied to them. However, as long as those rights are denied to them, Keyes' prescription amounts to little more than added (and unnecessary) discrimination.
Sorry, but you must be part of the system to make these types of decisions. But, things are looking up. -- Independent voters tilt toward Democrats (Associated Press 09/23/07). Well, at least Bush has taught a few voters a lesson. It's comes at a horrific cost, but sometimes that's what it takes. "Voting for a lesser evil is still evil." What a pretty little phrase, a phrase that Maestro Carl Rove played to perfection in 2000 and 2004. Cheney didn't call Rove the Pied Piper of the Independents without good reason. They say that politics is the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get votes. I'm forced to agree with Cheney. What Rove did was a stroke of genius. He didn't try to get the Independent vote for the Republicans; he did the exact opposite. He sent them down a wide, trampled down, easy-to follow path to their own candidate. Lou Dobbs put it this way. "If the Republican is selling crack cocaine in the school system and his Democratic opponent is selling unhealthy snack food, voting for a third candidate who's not allowed on school grounds will inevitably end up being a vote for the crack dealer." I like Rove's approach much better.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-23 13:03:02
Yes, Rove's approach is terrific if you're a corrupt political party that is willing to do anything to win. Of course, if you're a voter trying to decide the best way to use your vote, following Rove's advice is disastrous.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-23 20:34:44
Walt: People under 18 should be able to donate, but in reality how many actually do? The beauty about Keyes idea is it's simple, easy to understand and it is 99% correct.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-23 23:38:05
You mean just because someone doesn't use the right, they shouldn't have it? That's like saying that I shouldn't have the right to bear arms because I don't own a gun.
Wow! You made my point even better than I did, Walt. Corrupt political party...you're going to leave it at that? Barry Bonds could shoot up on the field and his fans wouldn't care. Parents are buying extremely violent videos for their children and the cheat sheets to go with them. Blackwater is killing whomever they please. Does anyone even know who the real owners of Blackwater are? Wouldn't it be a hoot if it turned out to be George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton? It's all just a big game for politicians. The Bush family did their level best to destroy Clinton and McCain. Yet, these two guys talk about old man Bush as if he were a saint. Personally, I'd find factual information about Blackwater even more newsworthy than another O.J. sequel. And Mr. and Ms. Reporter--excuse me if I don't call you journalist--how's the building of the fence between the U.S. and Mexico going? Has it been completed, or have all the illegal aliens gone home, and it's no longer needed? Oh, and who did finally end up owning America's ports? Yes, I know that this is nowhere near as important as Snoop Dogg pleading guilty to a weapons charge, but surely there's room on one of the very back pages for an update of the insignificant.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-24 12:21:28
First of all minors do not have the same rights as adults. Second your example is extremely poor, comparing a minor donating to being able to defend ones self. Do you think eight year olds should have the right to drive and carry a concealed weapon?
There would still be ways for anyone donate. Examples: For Ron Paul, I am printing out campaign material, handing out CD's and marching in parades without donating a dime. I think a minor who wanted help could find many fun ways of making a contribution.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-24 12:33:32
Gary: You're resorting to extremes in order to avoid the point. I don't want to get into a big children's rights debate, but I will say this...there are a whole lot of instances that I've observed where minors act more responsibly than many legal adults. For instance, there are 17 year olds who have grown up around guns and learned how to handle and respect them properly. These are more often kids who live in rural areas. That should be real-world enough for you. Yet, they can't vote. They can earn income, but by the Keyes' rule, they can't donate.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-25 05:38:42
Yes very true, but how would you go about determining who can carry guns, drive a car, vote, Marry, etc., to do this on a case by case basis would be a nightmare, and wouldn't the government love to get in on that one. And as I previously stated, big children would still have many ways to contribute without physically sending a check.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-25 06:12:18
And so you believe that their age justifies denying people under 18 the right to express and support their right to free speech with their dollars.
What makes this particularly unpleasant is that in general you and I agree for the most part. We want to deny corporations (fictional persons) the right to give to political campaigns. But because my simple standard doesn't preclude minors from donating, while your candidate's prescription does, you think there's something wrong with my approach because government must then decide who is old enough to donate? That's nonsense.
What this is really all about is the fact that you don't like that my prescription protects everyone's rights, even minors' rights, thereby making your presidential candidate's prescription look less compelling by comparison.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-25 11:41:27
"No Donations From Fictional People" doesn't fit on a T-shirt?
"No Donations From Corporations" doesn't fit on a T-shirt?
Give me a break.
Since you are apparently a Keyes supporter, why don't you post a separate article about why you think people should vote for him? After all, you have a columnist account.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-25 13:44:38
No, I am a Ron Raul supporter, I just thought Keyes idea was easy and a lot better that anything that has been brought up. I say keep it simple stupid, because a great number of them out there are. Your idea is better, but being less complicated has its benefits.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-25 19:08:56
Walt, this is my last comment on this, you can fit this easily on a tee: "If you can't vote you can't donate". If you leave openings, the dregs (most politicians) will take advantage. Lets say you include people under 18, you will find thousands of children around the world donating incredible amounts of money.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-26 02:43:42
I've got news for you, Gary. It is currently LEGAL for minors to give to political campaigns. You actually want to take away a right minors already have! Not even Congress wants to do that.
We currently have too few rights as it is, and you want to take away a right when the big government types aren't even trying to take it away!!!
Heaven forbid that minors should be permitted to act on what they think for themselves with their own money. They might act intelligently and responsibly, and we couldn't have that could we.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-26 13:33:25
I did not know they could donate, but I also do not know of any who do.
Congress will never do anything that takes money away from them, which the more I think about it, is why any serious talks about campaign finance reform is unfortunately quite fruitless.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-09-26 13:56:40
Well, if you didn't know that they could donate, then the article I just found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-11-Kidsmoney_N.htm is going to knock your socks off. Among other things:
(1) Barrack Obama returned donations from two children totalling $4600, but only after their legal status was brought to his campaign's attention.
(2) "In Arizona, 15-year-old actor Hunter Gomez gave $2,300 to Republican John McCain, his home state senator."
(3) "McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said the campaign sticks to federal rules. 'We have no way of vetting specific contributions unless (a donor's) age is brought to our attention,' she said."
(4) "A 2002 campaign-finance law rewrite, co-authored by McCain, banned donations from minors. The Supreme Court struck down that provision."
(5) "It's hard to determine how much campaign money comes from minors. Candidates report occupations, such as student, but not donors' ages. White House hopefuls have received 1,079 donations worth about $2 million from students so far this year, the Center said. Nearly 2,500 students gave $2.8 million in 2004."
(6) "Syracuse University student Jacqueline Jacobs, 20, gave $4,600 of her own funds to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. Jacobs said her father, a Clinton fan and Nassau County (N.Y.) Democratic chairman, 'would never tell me to give money.'"
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-27 06:44:21
Wow, but I am not surprised. They sure will exploit any loop hole. I am marching in a parade for Ron Paul on Sunday in Southington, Ct.. Looking forward to being around freedom lovers and promoting Liberty.
Posted By: Gary Lee Whitaker
Date: 2007-09-27 08:28:42
Under federal rules, minors can make political donations — as long as it's their money and decision to contribute.
What I meant was about the people donating through their children even when it is not their decision or money.
So this way if you have children, you can then donate more money. Sound rediculous to me.
The system needs to be tossed out with the bath watet.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.