Down With Plutocrats and Fat Cat DonorsGive the rest of us money to spend on campaign contributions.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007, at 2:23 PM ET
Michael Bloomberg's flirtation with the presidency dramatizes the breakdown of our campaign-finance system. His third-party threat is only realistic because he is able to spend a billion dollars of his own money. Even if this isn't enough to get him to the White House, it might well shift the balance between the candidates of the major parties, turning 2008 into a parody of 2000, with Plutocrat Bloomberg playing the destabilizing role of Citizen Nader.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThe Supreme Court says that Bloomberg has a constitutional right to spend unlimited money out of his own pocket, but there is a perfectly practical reform that would allow ordinary citizens to strike back. Give every voter a special credit card account containing $25 that they can spend at any time during presidential election campaigns. Voters could use these cards at local ATMs whenever they liked to send their "Patriot Dollars" to the candidate they favor for president.
If 2008 is like 2004, about 120 million Americans will go to the polls. If they could also go to their ATMs, they would contribute $3 billion in federal funds to qualifying candidates. Bloomberg would be free to compete for these funds if he agreed to keep his personal spending to a modest amount within the range of mere mortals—say, $50,000, a limit already upheld by the Supreme Court. But if the New York City mayor insisted on spending his own billions, he could be constitutionally barred from the patriot market—leaving his rivals free to campaign for the financial support of their fellow citizens. Whichever option Bloomberg chose, he could not crush ordinary candidates with his overwhelming wealth. Indeed, the very existence of Patriot Dollars will force plutocrats to think twice before trying to buy their way to the presidency.
A citizens' fund for campaign contributions would also democratize money-raising for primary elections, which at present gives too much power to a small number of big givers. Even though the latest Gallup poll shows John McCain to be the favorite of 18 percent of Republicans, compared to 7 percent for Romney, McCain is on the ropes because he isn't raising enough money to keep up. The betting markets say that Romney is twice as likely to win the nomination. John Edwards' standing is also threatened by his relatively low fund-raising totals; he came up with only $14 million in the first quarter compared to Hillary Clinton's record-breaking $25 million. If the Federal Election Commission reports another disappointing performance at the end of this month, the media might declare Edwards a "second tier" candidate and deprive him of a fair chance to plead his case in Iowa by downgrading his press coverage.
It's not surprising that McCain and Edwards are having a particularly tough time raising money from big givers. McCain's advocacy of campaign reform has never been a favorite among top donors, and Edwards' sharp turn to the left isn't a big crowd-pleaser, either—at least when the crowd consists of the small group of Americans who can deliver $2,300 apiece from a bunch of friends or business associates. Our present money primary doesn't even pretend to be consistent with the one person-one vote principles that govern our democracy—and in the disconnect between poll numbers and contribution levels, we are beginning to see the distorting consequences. With big primaries pushed into February, candidates need money now to compete effectively. The current setup is a standing invitation for big givers to determine the choices that ordinary voters will be allowed to confront at the polls.
Obama's Small Masterpiece of a Speech at Fort Hood
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
Does Rupert Murdoch Really Hate Google?
The Crops That Are Secretly Terrible for the Planet
The Three Kinds of Liberals Who Could Bring Down the Health Care Bill
Short Sayings That Make Me Happy
Remarks from the Fray:
We should progressively tax campaign spending, not subsidize it. Adding more money to politics is like trying to control a California wildfire by throwing gasoline on it.
I'd say a 10% tax on the first 10 million, and then a sliding scale with 50% paid on any dollar after 100 million is good. Under such laws, the 2004 presidential election would have put well over $250 million into the general fund, sparing taxpayers both the annoyance of political ad saturation, and shifting the tax burden to idiots with nothing better to do with their money than subsidize lying.
--Madai
(To reply, click here.)
Most elections are not like the next presidential election. In most elections, there is a prohibitive favorite in at least one party, usually the President running for a second term, or the incumbent Vice President.
Giving everyone $25 allows some of the members of the "we already have our candidate" party to spend their money supporting the most untenable candidate to weaken the opposing side. If this scheme were in place in 2004, lots of Republicans could have given to Nader or perhaps Sharpton.
While I'm sure this would make for entertaining election seasons, I doubt it is the best way to pick the best candidates.
--rackstraw
(To reply, click here.)
Forget about trying to regulate the amount of money each candidate can raise.
Instead let's limit by geography. The only people allowed to donate to a particular candidate's campaign are registered voters in that candidate's district.
So a candidate for a House seat can only raise money from his the constituents in his district, a Senator from registered voters in his state and only Presidential candidates would be able to raise money nationwide.
Such a system would end the practice of a Hilary Clinton running for Senate in New York raising a big chunk of her war chest in California or Rep. Don Young from Alaska getting his cash from Texas and Gulf Coast Oil people.
Candidates would be forced to spend more time in their home districts raising money (and listening to their actual constituents) rather than on various fundraising jaunts hundreds if not thousands of miles away. And since in many districts the population is so poor many candidates won't be able to afford big TV buys they would have to do two things; spend more time in 'town meetings' and other such events directly interacting with voters to get their support and two, they would have a serious incentive to improve the overall economic situation of their district.
Such a system would also even out the process. Bill Gates is free to give as much money as he wants to his Representative and Senators and the Presidential race but he can't use his money to influence the races in my district or state. In other words the big donors would be truly limited in who they could give money too.
The system passes constitutional muster because it in no way limits anyone's speech rights. Everybody has their own Representative, Senator and President that they can donate money to. They just can't give money outside their district the same way they can't vote outside their district.
--thorin01
(To reply, click here.)
Money is not speech. It is amplification. The Supreme Court got it dead wrong. Money in politics only buys you a louder bullhorn. It is an expression only of volume, not of content, and should not equate to speech. Does somebody with a huge amplifier and speakers have the right, under the constitution, to stand on a street corner and express his opinion so loudly he drowns out everyone else? I don't think the Founders wanted free speech to equate to whoever SHOUTS THE LOUDEST, via big campaign budgets.
Secondly: Instead of limiting campaign contributions, why don't we limit campaign spending instead? Force every candidate to operate within a strictly capped campaign budget, with independent auditing. Pick a reasonable amount - whatever it is, keep it tight, so as to make the spending decisions tough ones. And that is the most each candidate can spend, He/she is free to raise funds up to the spending limit, and spend it however he/she thinks best. It would be fun seeing candidates forced to live within their "means," and record how efficiently they are able to allocate very tight, very limited resources.
--RobertDublin
(To reply, click here.)
As citizens, we are free to spend our money on any legal activity, and spending money on a political campaign is allowed in the First Amendment. But while having Mayor Bloomberg spending his money upsets Ackerman and Ayers, these very same men have no problem spending your money. […] Who is this mystery "you" whose money Ackerman and Ayers look to distribute? Their implied answer is, of course, the government's. But the government does not own the money; it collects it for the expressed purpose of servicing national and local needs.
The American public does not need a middleman (and a rather ineffectual one at that) to redistribute $25.00 per citizen. If a person wishes to contribute to one or many campaigns, one is free to do so. If the government wishes to lower our tax burden to allow greater freedom of economic choices, please do so.
--IMKessel
(To reply, click here.)
(6/26)