Campaign Finance Reform
One morning in October of 1999, I was listening to a talk show on the radio while I was getting dressed for work. The topic was campaign finance reform, and as I climbed out of the shower, a woman called in to explain why she felt current reform efforts were misguided. Steves Forbes, she explained, whose ideas she really liked, did not have the personality to be elected president. No amount of money that he might pour into the effort would ever enable him to overcome this barrier, she felt. Yet what a shame it was that he would be unable to put his finances toward electing another individual who had similar views plus a winning personality and would thus be able to get elected and successfully set in motion the agenda he (Forbes) felt was appropriate for America. She was referring, of course, to the legal limits for how much any one person can contribute to any one candidate's campaign according to federal law, implying that these limits amounted to a breach of freedom.
A George Will editorial in the Washington Post from about the same time shared this woman's sentiments. Will believes that the excessive amounts of money we are seeing in George W. Bush's and other candidates' campaign troughs are not a sign of a corrupt political process but rather simply a sign of a healthy economy. Like the woman in the talk show, he feels that these limits on individual donations, which are now some twenty years old and have not been adjusted for inflation in all that time, are outdated and constitute an intrusive disruption of the political process. I hope it will not surprise you to hear that I disagree.
Our political process is not intended to be driven by money. It is set up so that one person gets one vote no matter how much money or property s/he has. Yet the way it has come to work in modern times is that one person who has the financial means can have a far greater effect on the process than the one vote to which s/he is entitled. I like Steve Forbes, too, and I think the flat tax he touted in 1996 would go a long way toward making the system fairer for those in all income brackets. But why should he have any more power to influence the system with his riches than you or I? Whether he's running for office himself or supporting another candidate?
The last two gubernatorial races in the State of Maryland are an example of how the well-to-do corrupt the political process without even breaking the law. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the lieutenant governer and the daughter of Robert Kennedy, has been able to consistently out-fundraise Ellen Sauerbrey, the Republican contender to Gov. Parris Glendenning by hitting up her Kennedy cousins all over the New England states for financial contributions. These folks have no right to vote in the Maryland elections, yet somehow it's okay for them to pour hundreds of thousands (it may actually be millions) of dollars into Maryland's political races. And what would you guess is worth more in the electoral process? One vote or $100,000 dollars with which to influence hundreds of other people's votes? We don't let foreign governments or persons donate to domestic campaigns, so why do we allow non-residents to unduly influence the outcome of state elections in which they have no right to vote?
Actually, one way in which reform advocates may indeed be misguided is in their attempts to control the flow of money on the donations side. A more effective way to go about this might be to limit how much money is actually spent. For one thing, this would be much easier to monitor. Here's how it might work:
Every time a television or newspaper ad is run, the money spent on that ad would be reported to the Board of Elections at the federal, state, or local level, depending on which office is being sought. Both the campaign team and the entity receiving the payment for running the ad would be responsible for accurately reporting the actual dollar amount spent. The same would apply to any brochures, flyers, or signs at the time of printing. In addition, the Board of Elections would randomly monitor TV and radio ads, newspapers, and the roadways in order to verify that no additional (and hence illegal) advertising was going on. The general public's assistance could be sought for this purpose, as well. Any breaches would result in the candidate's being barred from running during that election. If the rules were made clear from the beginning, no respectable candidate could claim ignorance and expect to be believed by the public.
I believe such a restructuring would encourage more honesty and more accountability in our leaders, many of whom currently feel they have to resort to questionable tactics to get elected just because their opponents do so or are perceived to. Perhaps this would contribute, in turn, to a better relationship between office holders and the general public.
The mention of signs a couple of paragraphs back brings up another point. Billboards, lawn signs, and bumper stickers are, to my mind, as great a detractor to democracy as anything. The obvious goal of such tools is mere name recognition, which puts politics on par with something as mindless as the fashion industry where names like Calvin Klein and Jordache become sought-after labels for a short time and are then just as readily consigned to the rag bin when something more appealing comes along. That's innocent enough where jeans and designer bags are concerned, but when we allow this mentality to creep into the process we use to elect our leaders, we place ourselves in grave danger of becoming victims of the worst type of demagoguery. In addition, they make our neighborhoods and our downtowns look like trash dumps. I personally would not be averse to the banning of all such items.
Well, that's what I think. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this issue. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about campaign finance reform, so don't be surprised if your remarks end up causing me to change my mind on at least some small aspect of this issue. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Click here to e-mail me if you wish.
Thanks,
Dave
Last Updated on December 6th 1999