This guy is a JD who spent 10 years trying to change copyright law. Once he realized that he was working with an inept institution (Congress) he tried to figure out why and once he did he landed where we were several months ago. His strategy is to raise about 20 million dollars and use that to somehow leverage candidates in congressional elections to not run unless they are using a more pure form of financing. He believes congressmen are not inherently corrupt, but that the system is set up for "K-Street" (synonymous with career politician; they spend ~50% of their time raising money for the party or themselves and have to constantly build into their thinking whether their actions will ruin their chances for money and hence re-election and hence no job).
I think we've figured most of this out and I still think the other idea is better - where federally elected officials become a special class of citizen with special tax laws applying to them.
http://change-congress.org/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This reminds me of the article about sex offender laws in the US from the Economist that I think I posted a link to, in which the laws get harsher and harsher because nobody gets votes by easing sex offender laws, and you get votes by claiming to be tougher on sex offenders. However, the laws are getting to the point where they actually waste money and police effort on people that really have no reason to be listed as a sex offender.
ReplyDeleteBut is this the most effective way to go at the system, or could it possibly just tilt the pendulum back from one side of the political spectrum to the other, depending on where it is when you start? Or could it just entrench the party that's in power currently? It seems like arguing for changing the system by withholding money does one of three things:
1-People who are against the current office holders are all for it, so they withhold money. But their money was unlikely to go to those in office anyway, so at best they're withholding money from the challengers, leaving an easier race for the incumbent.
2-People are evenly split, so money is withheld from both sides equally. I could see this going either way, as incumbents typically have a natural advantage in an election, but arguing for change would rally voters to the opposing party.
3-Since this is a self-selected group who are following the argument, that could mean they tend to have a similar idealogical viewpoint, and thus they could cannibalize their own party by withholding money while the other party loses less donations to this cause.
Also, how does one leverage politicians NOT to run using money? The pledge to support campaign finance reform could be a bit on the weak side, as there could be many ways to explain your way out of a no vote (this just wasn't the right way to do it, it wasn't tough enough, etc).
He makes a pretty convincing argument for it. He says since this money is very little compared to total money (ie it's marginal) that it would make a difference in a close election cycle like 2010 promises to be, according to Lessig. Here the money on the margin equals votes on the margin which might be the difference between retaining power in the Senate or not.
ReplyDeleteAnd I partly agree with you. I think unless there is pressure from the media then this will be very difficult (we know there is no chance in hell the media will ever make it an issue). But Lessig does not seem to address this point. We can guess that campaign finance reform is not a major issue among Americans so any candidate who adopts Lessig's point of view would be doing a Ron Paul essentially (or worse since Ron Paul actually appeals to issues that a lot of people deem important).
He is right though, when 9% of people think Congress is doing a good job, it's a clear sign that the institution has lost trust and therefore effectiveness so something should be done.
Okay, but isn't what I previously mentioned still a possibility? Even if it's a marginal amount, wouldn't it still run into the same problems I proposed above? I'll re-read the webpage after work. Before I just read like the "who we are" page and skimmed a couple others, I think.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if campaign finance reform would affect "soft money". This is the money that can be donated to the politcal party with no limit with which the political party can then spend however they want.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of making federal officials a special class of citizen with different tax laws is a very slippery slope. I would think there'd be tremendous potential for taking advantage of that. And once the officials are no longer in the same class of citizen, doesn't that become less representative democracy? I'd have to know more about what you mean by this before I could support it.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I am not sure who this was addressed to. If toward me, I think you misunderstood my “soft money” question. Anyway, let’s break this down to what an opponent of reform would argue. To tell people they cannot donate money to a candidate or a political party is infringement on a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteDo we agree with this? If there were no amount limits to contributions would participation increase or decrease?
How many Presidents won election when they themselves or there party didn’t win the money battle? This may be interpreted as a form of voting.
I think a cap on contributions to both the parties and the candidates, say $20-$100, would eliminate lobbyist and facilitate maximum constituency participation (i.e., I think a large number of people would be willing to donate $20 when it equates to one-fifth the maximum amount possible as opposed to donating $20 now, which may only equate to one-millionth the maximum someone else may donate).
The comment was in reference to Brent's original post. I think I had kind of glanced over the last couple sentences and didn't think to comment on it until I just reread it.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that campaign finance restrictions could be restricting of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court apparently has many rulings on this already, judging from the opening of this article:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.campfi2.pdf
These are some good questions. One thing I would point out is that winning the money battle isn't necessarily causative. If more people support the candidate, that person I would assume is more likely to get more in donations.
A slightly different question-is there a different limit for groups or corporations than there is for individuals? If so, how does that mesh with corporations being otherwise treated as a legal person? If not, disregard the latter question.
Corporation limits to candidates, parties, and PACs differ by state (e.g., 4 ban it, 5 no limits, rest have various limits). Focusing on the ones that have various limits:
ReplyDeleteTo candidates: $500 - $5000
To Parties: Most are “same as individual limits”
To PACs: $500 – unlimited
Individual Limits:
Candidate: $2500
Party: $28500
PACs: not to exceed $40000
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16594