[ click here for Jan. 2004 posting ]

This is where we hope to keep you thinking.  The site does not focus on diversionary minutia.  You get enough of that  incessant spin coming from mainstream media.

  

Money and Politics Who Owns Democracy?

"It's all about money," a New Jersey woman complained
in a conversation about politics.

Introduction

When money changes hands in politics, a cloud of suspicion rises. Now so much money is changing hands -- upwards of $2 billion in a presidential election year -- the cloud never lifts. Darkening public suspicion about politicians is the daily news over the staggering amounts of money that lobbyists spend to kill legislation or obtain tax breaks and favored treatment in laws and regulations. In Washington, D.C., alone, more than $1.4 billion a year is spent on efforts to influence federal officials.

Some areas of concern:

Campaign costs. Is it somehow undemocratic that candidates have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to run for a seat in a state legislature or millions to run for higher office? Or is this a relatively insignificant expense for communicating with voters?

these professionals provide a public service by keeping lawmakers in touch with many different viewpoints on every imaginable issue?

Elections. Is it fair that a candidate's ability to raise campaign money plays such an important role in the election's outcome? Or is the fundraising competition a good way for voters to judge a candidate's leadership skills?

Public service. Are elected officials spending too much of their time raising money instead of doing the job they were elected to do? Are they spending too much time with special interest lobbies? Or is this simply the most efficient way for officials to gather information and different perspectives?

Corruption. Is it wrong for elected officials to accept campaign contributions from donors that have or often have matters pending before government? Is it wrong for politicians to travel on corporate jets and accept other free services from lobbyists? Or are these concerns blown way out of proportion?

Political equality. Is it undemocratic for contributors to have more political influence with elected officials than do citizens who do not contribute? Is it wrong for lobbyists to have more access to politicians than other citizens?

Such concerns run deep. Americans tell poll takers that they distrust politicians and politics and are disillusioned about the role of money in politics. Consider what most Americans say in recent surveys: that high campaign costs discourage good people from running for political office; that it's time for Washington politicians to retire and make room for new people; that politicians say anything to get elected; that elections are "for sale;" and that, ultimately, government operates "for a few big interests" instead of for "the benefit of all people."

In 1996, a majority of Americans did not vote, and one explanation -- among many -- was that many people didn't bother to participate in a system they consider unresponsive and exclusionary. To many, it's an entrenched political system where, for example, 98.3 percent of incumbent members of the U.S. House of Representatives were reelected in 1998. The curious thing is that most Americans told poll takers that they supported their own representative that year, but disapproved of the way Congress as a whole was doing its job.

The significant level of public alienation from politics calls into question the very legitimacy of our democratic form of government. What's wrong? What can be done? This citizens' guide focuses on the role of money in public life. To help citizens sort through the issue, this guide, like other books in the NIF series, breaks the issue down to some fundamental American concerns. This unbundling process separates major strands of American thinking on the issue into several distinct public policy perspectives, or choices. Each choice offers a different diagnosis of what's wrong, based on views and priorities voiced by many Americans in studies and surveys. Each choice also provides a direction for public action or a way to approach the problem. These approaches include ideas and proposals that are drawn from across the political spectrum. Because every policy choice has its costs, tradeoffs, and weaknesses, this issue book also asks citizens to confront the downside of their preferred choice and make sure they would be willing to accept it. For purposes of clarity and to spur public deliberation, the choices are presented as distinct alternatives, with each one grounded on a different public agenda. For information about public deliberation and the National Issues Forums, visit the NIF Web site.

Money Troubles From the Start

Democracy's most persistent dilemma may be that politicians need lots of money to publicize their candidacy, engage citizens, and get voters to the polls -- all without appearing to buy votes or show favor to financial supporters.

Take an early example: In 1757, George Washington first "stood" for a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses (to "run," or promote one's candidacy, was considered unethical in some states and illegal in others until the 19^th century). His expenditures for getting out the vote included 2 gallons of cider royal, 28 gallons of rum, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and 50 gallons of rum punch. While luring voters to the polls with food and drink was commonplace at the time, Washington's critics accused him of buying votes. "Even in those days, this was considered a large campaign expenditure, because there were only 391 voters in his district," writes historian George Thayer. Twenty years later, James Madison personally tried to reform the system by not distributing liquor to voters -- and was defeated for reelection to the Virginia legislature. In 1811, Maryland became the first state to ban the sale of alcohol on election day in a feeble attempt to curb its use for political purposes.

Recent efforts to change the system have collided with the U.S. Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution. Following the Watergate scandal, which included allegations of bribery and other campaign finance abuses, Congress created a campaign finance system in 1974. It limited donations to candidates as well as candidates' overall campaign spending. The Supreme Court's review of the law produced a split decision: it ruled that limits on what individuals can contribute were a constitutional way to deter corruption and the appearance of corruption; but it struck down limits on what candidates can spend, ruling that such limits would violate their right to free speech. The only exception, the court added, was that candidates could accept voluntary limits on their campaign spending in exchange for public funds -- as is the case in presidential elections and in some states. Current laws are also complicated in that they limit a person's gifts to a candidate but not to a political party.

Money, Power, Equity

Money has always been a political problem, but today there a widespread perception that the political thirst for cash is out of control. In April 2000, a party held by the Republican National Party set a record by raising $21.3 million, only to be outdone the next month by a Democratic National Committee event that raised $26.5 million. Some of the guests had written checks for $500,000, taking advantage of the lack of regulatory limits on contributions to political parties, as distinct from individual candidates.

Money also played a role in foreshortening the 2000 presidential primaries, as many candidates could not raise enough money to run competitive campaigns and dropped out -- narrowing the field down to just two, George W. Bush and Al Gore, well before many states had a chance to hold their primary elections. A number of Americans complained about being shut out of the process of selecting candidates for the nation's top job.

The relationship between money and power inevitably raises questions about two clashing democratic principles, the freedom to support political causes and the right to political equality. As Americans, we take it for granted that we can give money or other assistance to any cause or candidate that advocates our views and interests. But Americans also believe in the democratic principle of political equality among all citizens -- a belief that the entire political system, including everything from running elections to apportioning budgets, must be done in the spirit of "one person, one vote."

These principles rub against each other, often creating sparks. For example, what happens when one citizen gives money -- or volunteers time -- to a political campaign and another citizen doesn't? Does the campaign donor or volunteer derive unfair political advantage, perhaps by having more political access or influence than the citizen who didn't donate or volunteer?

Concern about political equity has increased along with campaign costs and politicians reliance on wealthy donors. Less than 10 percent of Americans contribute time or money to political campaigns. Essentially, this has been the pattern throughout American history, but the amount of money involved today has set off alarms.

Framework for Deliberation

To promote public deliberation about the role of money in our democracy, this issue book presents three approaches, or choices in the matter. Rather than conforming to the ideas of any one advocate, each choice is constructed of many congruent public policy proposals. Each choice also represents a distinct set of American priorities and views. Some elements of the choices may be readily mixed, but not others, as each choice has different priorities and a different way of seeing the root of the problem.

Choice One supporters say democracy cannot thrive unless political candidates have enough money to inform citizens about their competing ideas and qualifications. The problem is that more than 90 percent of political contributions comes from wealthy contributors and special interests, which often have matters pending before government. As a result, many elections are elitist fund-raising competitions, and the democratic principle of "one person, one vote" is corrupted into "one donor, much influence." In this view, the nation must regain control of elections by choosing from a menu of reform options that includes publicly funded campaigns and regulations. The nation is moving in this direction, but it's been a very half-hearted effort lacking a real commitment to clean up politics. It's time to get serious about making real reforms.

Choice Two supporters say campaign finance reforms will only disappoint and disillusion citizens because they focus narrowly on political campaign contributions, which are dwarfed by the billions annually spent on lobbying politicians out of the public view. Reforms that curb special interests' spending on political campaigns merely redirect the flow of money in politics, sending it deeper underground. In this view, the way to reduce money's corrupting influence is to exert much more control over the way politicians and bureaucrats at every level of government interact with special interest lobbies. In addition to new restrictions on lobbying, there also needs to be more restrictions on politicians. Ballot measures, which permit voters in some states to enact or repeal laws when politicians ignore the public will, should be permitted in all states and at the federal level. Laws should also make it easier for voters to recall elected officials who aren't serving the public interest.

Choice Three supporters say our representative system of democracy has withstood the test of time and, until the 1970s, worked well without much regulation of campaign finance. Then the Watergate scandal precipitated a rush to regulate political contributions, restricting everyone's freedom. But freedom resists regulation, and the reform effort backfired, systematically distorting our democratic system and causing more damage than the occasional bribery scandal ever did. Elections are now tipped towards incumbents, celebrities, and the rich. Most challengers can not raise enough money to compete. Political gridlock is epidemic. To revive democracy, we need more money for competitive campaigns and less regulation to ease fundraising and spur discussion of viewpoints in our diverse society. A new requirement for fuller and faster disclosure of all political donations is, in this view, the best way to deter corruption and head off conflicts of interest.

For Further Reading / Money & Politics: Who Owns Democracy?

Anthony Gierzynski, Money Rules: Financing Elections in America (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000).

Michael J. Malbin, Thomas L. Gais, The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the American States (Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press, 1998).

www.destinationdemocracy.org is the Web site for Destination Democracy, a non-profit organization funded by the Benton Foundation. The site provides different perspectives on the issue of money in politics.

Managing Money, Politics, and Power Over Three Centuries:

1757: In his first race for the Virginia House of Burgesses, George Washington serves an average of a quart and a half of alcoholic beverages to each voter -- and draws criticism for enlarging the then customary polling place buffet to win the election.

1828: Andrew Jackson elected 7^th President, pioneering the use of public fundraising appeals.

1897: Nebraska, Missouri, Tennessee, and Florida prohibit political contributions from corporations.

1898: South Dakota lets citizens enact or repeal laws in the voting booth. By 1992, 26 other states adopt some form of the ballot initiative and referendum process to empower voters.

1907: Congress prohibits corporate contributions to federal candidates.

1920: Women gain the right to vote with the enactment of the 19^th Amendment, which started as a citizens' ballot initiative.

1921: Teapot Dome scandal erupts after oil companies bribe a member of President Warren Harding's cabinet to obtain oil drilling rights on federal land.

1925: Congress imposes spending limits on candidates' campaign committees, but no limit on the number of committees, rendering the law useless.

1952: Rosser Reeves, creator of M&M's ad campaign ("Melts in your mouth, not in your hand") produces the nation's first political 30-second TV spots, for presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1960: The first televised debate, between presidential candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. With TV sets in almost every home now, candidates have an easier time getting their message out, but the price of TV ads causes campaign costs to soar.

1971: Congress, in response to rising campaign costs, sets spending limits and disclosure rules for federal campaigns.

1974: Campaign finance abuses surrounding the Watergate scandal prompt Congress to limit contributions to candidates to $1,000 from individuals and to $5,000 from political action committees. The law also bans "soft money," the unlimited contributions to political parties. It further requires disclosure of donations and expenditures, and creates a public financing system of matching funds for presidential races. Other aspects of the law are challenged in court.

1976: U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution: 1) permits limits on contributions to candidates in order to curb corruption and the appearance of corruption; 2) does not permit curbs on candidates' campaign expenditures, which are deemed a higher level of protected speech.

1978: Minnesota enacts partial public funding for state elections. By 1993, some form of partial public funding is available in 23 states.

1979: Congress repeals ban on unlimited contributions to political parties, after the parties had trouble raising funds for increasing voters' awareness of issues during the 1976 elections.

1996: Maine provides nearly full public financing for state election campaigns. Subsequently, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Arizona pass similar laws.

1996: Voter turnout falls below 50% for the first time in a presidential election since 1924.

1997: U.S. Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold sponsor legislation to reinstitute a ban on unlimited contributions to political parties. The money is used primarily for "issue ads,", which indirectly focus on candidates.

1998: Disclosure of Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers for donors and China's attempts at influence buying, prompt the Congress to investigate allegations of improper fundraising by the Democratic Party and the Clinton re-election campaign.

1999: Lobbying efforts in Washington soar, with 38 registered lobbyists and $2.7 million in lobbying expenditures for every member of Congress.

2000: National Democratic and Republican parties raise a record $160.5 million in unregulated soft money during the first 15 months of the 2000 election cycle, or nearly double the amount raised in a comparable period for the 1996 election.

Choice One: Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising System

Deerfield, Massachusetts -- Mary Allen Swedlund, 54, is a long-time citizen activist. While raising a family here, she has served on the school board and helped organize political rallies and letter-writing campaigns for causes as diverse as curbing nuclear weapon development and increasing public spending on health care and education. Like many who become involve in political activities, she has been frustrated because the pace of progress has been frustratingly slow.

"Even though everybody agrees that our children are our most important resource, the amount of federal and state money we are willing to invest in education is embarrassing," she said. "Why are we building weapons that even the Pentagon doesn't want and why aren't we building better schools that everyone wants?"

The answer, she's sure, has a lot to do with the corrupting influence of political contributions from special interests. A study by the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project tells the story of the 1995-96 election cycle for the state legislature:

Four out of five races were uncontested.

Most campaign funds were given to incumbents who faced no opponents in either the primary or the general election.

In races that were contested, winners generally spent twice as much as their opponents.

Just 3 in 10 challengers raised enough money to run a competitive race.

The candidate who spent the most money won 9 out of 10 legislative races (as well as all statewide races).

Less than half of one percent of all contributors gave 74 percent of all campaign gifts.

More than one-third of all cash gifts, much of it given to incumbents by lobbyists, was given in non-election years.

Big donations came from heavily regulated industries like health care and insurance. During this period of giving, legislators put aside popular legislation -- opposed only by insurers and drug makers -- that would have reduced auto insurance premiums and lowered the cost of prescription drugs.

Fed up with what she sees as the corrupting influence of money in Massachusetts politics, Ms. Swedlund joined 6,000 other citizen activists in a state-wide movement in 1992 to reform laws governing political contributions. Six years later, in 1998, Massachusetts had a new law, called the Clean Money Campaign Reform, that takes politics out of the hands of special interests. It is designed to level the political playing field between incumbents and challengers, attract more candidates, save money that would otherwise be spent on behalf of special interests, and restore public confidence in government.

Under this law, for example, any citizen can qualify for $24,000 in public funds to run for state representative by first collecting 200 contributions, each less than $100, and agreeing to a total spending limit of $30,000. (By comparison, incumbents in 1998 spent an average of $35,000 and, in the relatively few contested races, challengers spent an average of $18,000.)

Public funding, which is capped at one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget and does not increase tax rates, amounts to $3.20 per resident a year. The $45 million scheduled to be spent on elections in 2002 represents a five-fold increase in current campaign spending because public funding is expected to attract so many more candidates.

The reform, which takes effect in 2002, is similar to ones recently enacted in Arizona, Vermont, and Maine. In one form or another, regulatory reform or public funding of election campaigns is currently being considered in 30 other states.

Restoring Public Confidence

Americans used to scoff at "elections" in countries with communist or dictatorial governments where unopposed leaders were routinely "re-elected" with 99.9 percent of the vote. Now many Americans scoff at our own national system, where 40 percent of state legislators run unopposed and about 90 percent of incumbents are reelected. Across America, at every level of government, most of our elections tell an undemocratic story, in this view.

Democracy cannot thrive without competition among political candidates who have enough money to inform citizens about their ideas and qualifications. To get their message across, candidates need to spend money on such things as rallies, posters, bumper stickers, lawn signs, mailings, and advertising. The problem is that more than 90 percent of political contributions comes from wealthy contributors and special interests, which often have matters pending before government. As campaign costs increase, elections become elitist fundraising competitions and the democratic principle of "one person, one vote" is corrupted into "one donor, much influence."

Money and politics have always been a dangerous mix, and the problem has mushroomed along with the costs of running an election campaign. Politicians, especially those running for major offices, find themselves on a fundraising treadmill and face the inevitable conflict of serving the moneyed interests as well as the public interest.

Proponents of this choise say that the only way to restore confidence in our political system is by re-balancing two democratic principles: political equality among citizens and political freedom to financially support political candidates. As it is now, the vast majority of Americans have lost political equality with special interests and affluent citizens who use campaign contributions to advance their interests in a money-hungry system. In this view, restoring political equality requires the nation to consider a menu of regulatory reforms and public funding options.

Advocates of publicly funded elections maintain that political campaigns are for the public good and deserve the public's financial support. Under public systems, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled constitutional in 1976, public funds are given to politicians who accept voluntary limits on spending. Under this general concept there are many possible levels of public subsidy for election campaigns and many ways to carry out the program.

Choice One supporters also favor imposing new restrictions on contributions. For example, many supporters suggest permitting only individual citizens, not corporations or committees, to make gifts to candidates and political organizations, and restricting those donations to small amounts -- say, $250.

To improve the quality of campaigns and to keep public costs down, Choice One supporters often call for shortening campaigns, and providing free air time for public discussions. For example, supporters oftenoften urge TV and radio stations to provide free time for candidates to convey and debate their ideas. Allowing each candidate as little as 90 minutes per election would not burden broadcasters, proponents say, and they should in any event be required to provide this public service in exchange for their license to use the public airways.

It's a Civil Rights Issue

Choice One supporters who advocate publicly funded elections see their cause as nothing less than a fight for voters' civil rights. After all, the nation has come a long way since the days when only white, male property owners could vote. Over the years, Congress and the courts have removed many barriers to voting including property, gender, race, age qualifications, poll taxes, and high filing fees for candidates. In striking down these barriers courts have followed the democratic principle that every law-abiding adult citizen should have an equal vote and equal political power.

But today, the biggest barrier to fair elections and equal voting rights is what supporters call the "wealth primary," a term coined to describe the fundraising competition that precedes -- and, to an astonishing extent, predetermines -- the outcome of official elections. While money can't buy elections, lack of it can lose them. Consequently, supporters believe that most elections are foregone conclusions because the candidates who raise the most money in the private wealth primary almost invariably win the official elections. Consider the impact of the wealth primaries in the 1998 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, where citizens are supposed to have the closest ties to federal government. Choice One maintains that most elections were essentially over when a majority of incumbents entered the race with their campaign war chests overflowing with cash. With this money, they scared off competition and vastly outspent rivals. As a result, one in five races was uncontested by a major party opponent, and three out of four incumbents beat their under-funded challengers by landslide margins (more than 20 percent) -- including landslide wins in every House race in 11 states.

Moreover, elected officials have to spend inordinate amounts of time raising money for their next election -- and that's a powerful threat to an effective government. U.S. senators, for example, have to raise an average of $2,000 a day every day during their entire six-year term to run competitive elections.

Reforms Revive Democracy

While Choice One argues for a menu of reform ideas, it is common for states to enact a combination of anticorruption rules and public funding. Minnesota, for instance, has obtained nearly 100 percent participation by candidates in its voluntary public funding system. The innovative program reimburses voters for individual donations of up to $50 and drastically limits the influence of big donors. For example, candidates cannot accept gifts over $500 from any one source except a political party, which can give a candidate only up to $5,000. As a result, uncontested elections are a rarity, races have more candidates competing, and the state has one of the nation's highest rates of voter participation.

What Can Be Done?

Choice One supporters generally favor the following measures:

Reduce the power of special interests and big donors with an approach that includes stricter regulations or publicly funded elections, or some combination of both.

Consider using tax dollars to finance election campaigns as a way to end the corrupting influence of private money in politics. For example:

Use one of many innovative ways to finance elections, such as direct grants to qualifying candidates or direct payment of certain campaign expenses.

Incorporate the cost of publicly funding elections into budgets at every level of government.

funds by demonstrating some minimum level of public support, perhaps by raising small sums from many voters or by collecting voters' signatures endorsing their candidacy.

Consider tightening regulations on campaign fundraising. For example:

as $250 per candidate per election.

Ban political gifts from out-of-state or out-of-district, making it as illegal as out-of-state or out-of-district voting. Ban all foreign contributions.

Ban all unlimited political contributions, such as the "soft money" donations to political parties, which are then siphoned off to favoriate candidates, often incumbents.

postage during election years.

Require radio and TV broadcasters, as a condition of their license to use public airways, to provide free air time to candidates (for example, 90 minutes per candidate per election).

In This View

Politicians can't simultaneously serve the public interest and the moneyed interests that pay their campaign bills.

Privately funded elections, together with soaring campaign costs, have corrupted our entire political system by giving wealthy donors and special interests too much influence. To restore legitimacy to our political process, we need major reforms to reduce the corrupting role of private money in politics.

Because campaigns are so expensive, elected officials have to spend a huge amount of time raising money instead of doing their job.

If the American people are to regain control of the government, they may have to pay for election campaigns. Publicly funding elections could save taxpayers money in the long run by reducing wasteful government spending on tax loopholes for corporations and pork barrel projects for special interests.

The role of big money in politics has robbed most Americans of political equality. To restore it, contributions must only come from individual citizens and be limited to small amounts.

Providing free air time to candidates would make election campaigns more substantive and more democratic. Americans are sick of the flood of 30-second ads that are little more than slogans and slurs.

With Choice One's reforms, our elected officials would be freed from real and apparent conflicts of interest and be more able to focus on the common good.

In Contrary Views

Do taxpayers really want to pay for the campaigns of politicians they oppose or for fringe candidates to get up on soap-boxes? Thanks to public funding, federal taxpayers may subsidize the 2000 primary campaign of Lyndon LaRouche, who has called for colonizing Mars in some of his seven prior presidential campaigns. As a felon -- he was convicted of tax fraud in 1989 -- some states wouldn't allow him to vote, but he can run for President and may be eligible for public matching funds.

Americans have not supported public funding. Despite the fact that it doesn't cost them anything, the number of taxpayers who have assigned $1 to $3 of their federal tax payment to the presidential campaign fund has steadily declined to under 15 percent.

Are Choice One supporters suggesting that the only fair system is one in which they win elections more often? Rigging the system with new regulations or public funds so they win isn't democratic.

This choice goes way too far with new regulations. Why, for example, restrict donations from individual citizens?

fighters assembling organizations that promote their self-interests. That's America.

This choice attempts to reduce the power of money in election campaigns, but the more worrisome problem of money in politics comes from lobbying done year-round by special interests.

For Further Reading / Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising System

Dan Clawson and others, Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1998).

Darrell West and Burdett Loomis, The Sound of Money: How Political Interests Get What They Want (New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton, 1999).

www.publicampaign.org is the Web site for Public Campaign, a Washington, D.C., based non-profit organization that seeks to change the money culture that has taken over politics.

Choice Two: Rein In Lobbyists and Politicians

Washington, D.C. -- In 1997 corporations and special interests employed 14,946 registered lobbyists and spent $1.26 billion to influence the drafting of legislation and regulations. Some of that effort was directed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which was developing criteria for foods that could be truthfully labeled "organic."

The idea for the rule had come from organic farmers and food producers who avoided synthetic pesticides, used only natural ingredients, and were generally mindful of environmental impact. They had sought a federal definition to end the confusion in the marketplace, caused largely by advertisers' discovery that the word organic helped sell just about any food product, often at a premium price.

But the proposed definition that emerged from Washington had a distinctive special-interest ring to it. The department suggested its "USDA Certified Organic" label could be used with foods produced with genetic engineering, irradiation, a variety of pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, and fertilizer produced from municipal sewage sludge.

"Sludge! With heavy metals in it! That's the one that really got me," said James Williams, a teacher in Lincoln, Massachusetts, who tends his own organic garden. Although sludge is processed and deemed a safe fertilizer by public agencies, it contains residues of pathogens and heavy metals from human and industrial waste and, since the 1980s, ocean dumping of sludge has been banned for environmental reasons. Sludge has come into use as a cost-free fertilizer.

The agriculture department rewrote its labeling criteria after Williams and 275,602 other citizens responded to the proposed regulation. Nearly all of the comments from citizens were negative. "Mother Nature does not apply pesticides created in a laboratory," Julie Holmes of Minnesota wrote. "Well, by now, it must be obvious to you that the proposed rule that you penned is totally unacceptable to the organic community," Thomas Wittman of California wrote. In March 2000, the department issued a final rule, which limits use of the organic label to foods produced with nearly all natural materials, using farming practices that keep environmental harm to a minimum.

Curb Lobbyists' and Politicians' Power

Choice Two reads the saga of USDA's organic label as a cautionary tale about the way special interests brazenly attempt to pervert the public will for private gain. In this instance, the public got wind of the situation and was able to apply enough pressure to correct it. But just the fact that this story made national news indicates how rare it is for the public to be able to carry out such a rescue. Supporters say that it's time to take a hard look at the way special interests interact with public officials and to make every effort to strip this interaction of anything that smacks of corruption or conflict of interest. In this view, we need a two-pronged approach: cracking down on lobbyists and giving citizens more power to go around elected officials when the public will be continually thwarted.

In a democracy like ours, citizens are sovereign and are the ultimate source of political power. The trouble is that money can buy power and access, taking it away from citizens, as is the case now. The prior choice focuses on campaign finance reforms, but propoents of a second choice insist that those reforms will ultimately prove disappointing, even disillusioning, because of the many other channels through which even larger amounts of political money can flow. Political contributions are already dwarfed by the amount of money spent on lobbying, advocacy research, and proposals for special interests. So money that is banned from political campaigns will simply be redirected. History shows that changes in campaign finance laws have merely altered the pattern of spending in politics, much the way squeezing a balloon just makes it bulge somewhere else. After all, new campaign finance rules or publicly funded election campaigns, as proposed by the prior choice, won't banish a single lobbyist from the corridors of local, state, or federal power. Unless steps are taken, corporate and special interests will always slavishly attend to powerful politicians, gaining them special access and influence -- typically at public expense.

Supporters of this choice say that lobbyists should be denied private access to elected officials and public policy makers. Just as no judge would confer with just one attorney in a pending court case, politicians should be barred from holding private meetings with individual lobbyists. Also, all of the ways lobbyists ingratiate themselves with public officials should be banned, including "hiring" politicians to give speeches, write articles, or act as consultants; wining and dining politicians; and wooing officials them with Super Bowl tickets, Florida vacations, and free services such as organized fund-raisers. Many of these gifts are made in secret, and sometimes even the beneficiaries are unaware of the subtle ways lobbyists curry favor. Lobbyists for the tobacco giant Philip Morris, for example, gave $30,000 to a nonprofit group that helped pay for New York Governor George Pataki's 1995 and 1996 trips to Hungary, where he promoted trade and visited his relatives. The Pataki administration said it had accepted the gift from the Hungarian-American Chamber of Commerce without knowing the source of the nonprofit organization's funds. At the time, Philip Morris was lobbying the state to repeal smoking restrictions in New York City and other places.

One reason for the cozy connection between lobbyists and politicians is that many lobbyists are former public officials. In 1999, 138 former members and leaders of Congress were registered lobbyists in Washington. At every level of government across the nation there is this revolving door between legislatures and lobbies, which, in itself, is a corrupting influence on government. Choice Two supporters argue that when a regulator or elected official is considering a public issue, his or her judgment should not be clouded by the lure of a future career as a special interest lobbyist. Congressional rules bar former members and high-level staff from lobbying Congress for a year after leaving public employment, but this rule should be made into a lifetime ban in Washington and across the nation, in this view.

Supporters say that new restrictions should also include provision for strict enforcement and tough penalties for violators, including fines and loss of the license to lobby.

In addition to imposing a variety of restrictions on lobbyists, Choice Two calls for making sure that citizens have the last word in our democracy. This is a call for a fundamental shift in power from elected officials to the electorate. The primary mechanism for making this shift in power is the ballot measure, which has been used for a century in some states and simply needs to expanded nationally. Citizens, in this view, should have the power to enact or repeal laws, at every level of government. This gives citizens the opportunity to pursue the public will when elected officials can't or won't because of their own self-interests or special interest pressures. In a similar vein, laws should make it easier for voters to recall elected officials who ignore the public will.

Lobbying: A Growth Industry

Between 1997 and 1999, lobbying expenditures in Washington grew 13 percent to $1.4 billion and the ranks of registered lobbyists increased 37 percent to 20,512, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C. There are no comparable figures for lobbying in cities, counties, and states, but estimates of these annual expenditures run into the billions of dollars -- expenditures, by the way, that are publicly subsidized, as our tax system wrongly allows companies to write off these costs as business expenses.

What do these lobbyists do? Well, take the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999, which sponsors said would improve the process of regulating potentially dangerous pesticides. Farmers in overalls were flown into Washington to speak in favor of the bill, and 219 House members and 37 Senators subsequently signed on as co-sponsors. But the bill's future dimmed after the Washington Post discovered that the legislation had been written, word for word, by lawyers in Virginia who worked for a group of pesticide makers, agricultural businesses, and food processors. The legislation, it also turned out, was designed to weaken protections for making food safe for children, protections that had been requested by the National Academy of Sciences.

In this view, lobbyists' smooth work with the "Fairness and Openness" bill demonstrates that efforts to control political donations won't control the influence of special interests in government. Lobbyists should not be allowed to draft laws. And should legislation like the "Fairness and Openness" act become law, voters should have authority to consider its repeal and the recall of politicians associated with it.

Needed: More Voter Oversight

Choice Two's call for giving citizens more power to offset the powerful influence of money might sound radical, but these ideas date back to the founding of the republic and, what's more, have been used successfully in some states.

Thomas Jefferson was among the first to call for states to recognize the sovereignty of citizens in a democracy by giving voters the right to enact and repeal laws in the voting booth. Ballot measures serve as a final check on the power of elected officials, allowing voters to enact or repeal law when, for whatever reason, elected lawmakers ignore the public will. Choice Two notes that citizens have used ballot initiatives to make laws after legislators were unwilling or unable to act on issues as varied as women's suffrage, term limits for elected officials and limits on political fund-raising.

Since 1898, 27 states -- mostly in the Midwest and West -- have adopted ballot measures, usually both referenda (laws enacted or proposed by a legislature and then put on the ballot for acceptance or rejection) and voter initiatives to enact or repeal laws (placed on the ballot by petition from registered voters). Yet only five states regularly use initiatives, largely because of burdensome restrictions that make it hard to use the process in other states. Choice Two advocates restoring citizen sovereignty by eliminating burdensome restrictions on the initiative process and making it available to citizens in all 50 states and at the federal level.

What Can Be Done?

Choice Two supporters generally favor the following measures:

Recognize that campaign finance reforms are of little value because they would merely send more money underground, diverting it to special-interest lobbying campaigns.

Take steps to restrict the influence of lobbyists:

Deny lobbyists private access to elected officials and public policy makers. Make such meetings public.

Ban lobbyists' gifts, in all their disguises, including paying "honoraria" for politicians' speeches or articles; wining and dining politicians; and providing free services such as organizing fund-raisers.

Close the revolving door between government and lobbying. Impose a lifetime ban on former public officials becoming lobbyists.

Enforce restrictions on lobbyists and impose tough penalties for violations, including large fines and loss of the license to lobby. Also impose fines, suspensions, and other disciplinary measures on public officials who violate restrictions on interacting with lobbyists.

Reduce public officials' reliance on lobbyists for information by hiring more professional staff.

Take steps to make elected officials more accountable:

Give voters the final say. Expand upon the success of some states in empowering voters to enact or repeal laws. Extend the ballot initiative and referendum process to every state and the federal government.

Eliminate bureaucratic rules that make it too hard or expensive to put issues on the ballot.

Strengthen voters' ability to recall elected officials who disregard the public interest.

In This View

Why should lobbyists for special interests be allowed to deluge public officials with gifts and free services? Why should politicians be allowed to accept these gifts and services?

Campaign finance reforms won't reduce the power of special interests, they will just divert more money to lobbying. Today's problem with money in politics is that largely hidden lobbying expenditures for influencing politicians dwarf campaign contributions, buying the special interests enormous political power, to the public's detriment.

If we want to clean up politics and make government more responsive and accountable to the public, we need strict regulations on the way lobbyists promote special interest agendas.

Democracy is a work in progress, one that Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers said would need to be re-tuned and reaffirmed by every generation. The time has come to fundamentally alter the balance of power between elected officials and citizens. Voters need the right to enact or repeal laws when politicians can't or won't do the job.

Unless citizens gain more authority to check and balance politicians' power, history shows that incumbents' self-interest and the moneyed interests tend to block popular public policies.

Some states have used ballot initiatives for a century -- not to replace the representative form of government, but to give citizens another way to check and balance legislative power. The best example of this is voters' enactment of term limits for state officials, which legislators couldn't bring themselves to accept.

In Contrary Views

This choice attacks lobbyists, but democracy couldn't run effectively without them. Lobbyists speak on behalf of all segments of society and industry, and advise lawmakers about the likely impact legislation would have. Coal miners, teachers, cops, lawyers, environmentalists, chemical makers, and just about everyone else in America is represented by lobbyists.

This choice tries to fix something that isn't broken. The press, existing bribery laws, and ethics rules do a very good job of protecting us from the corrupt use of money by lobbyists. Because lobbying is already so regulated, it's less of a concern that more money is spent on lobbying than on political campaigns.

Laws to ban lobbying are unenforceable.

Americans aren't asking to vote on complex issues. Most citizens don't have the time or experience to evaluate policy issues, and it's unfair and counterproductive to ask them to do so in the voting booth.

Ballot measures don't give citizens any more power; in fact, they give special interests an easier way to influence public policy. Many studies of ballot initiatives show that special interests routinely use their money to determine the outcome of many of these "citizen initiatives."

This choice takes a step forward in acknowledging the futility of efforts to control the campaign contributions. But instead of taking the next logical step -- simply scrapping our problematic campaign finance regulations -- this choice calls for a huge program of new laws and regulations and making risky experiments with our representative form of government.

For Further Reading / Rein In Lobbyists and Politicians

Thomas Cronin, Direct Democracy: the Politics of Initiative, Referenda and Recall (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).

Ken Silverstein, Washington on $10 Million A Day: How Lobbyists Plunder the Nation (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1998).

www.iandrinstitute.org is the Web site for the Initiative and Referendum Institute, which provides non-partisan information about the initiative and referendum process at the local, state, national, and international level.

Choice Three: Publicize All Political Donations,
Don't Regulate Them

Madison, Wisconsin -- As a social worker and evangelical Christian minister, Ron Greer has strong convictions and is used to sharing them. So in 1998 when a congressional seat opened up here, some of his friends, colleagues and even a few national leaders encouraged him to enter the primary race. He soon discovered the underside of American politics. In becoming a politician, Pastor Greer found that the rules of the game essentially required him to become a full-time beggar, targeting his message primarily at affluent citizens who could financially support his campaign.

For an African-American, who had been a firefighter for 18 years, glad-handing at country club lunches was not his idea of a populist campaign. "I wanted to talk in predominantly black communities and tell them they've been hoodwinked by the Democratic Party," said Pastor Greer, a Republican, who supports school vouchers and preaches against abortion and gay marriage. "My people told me it was a noble idea, but it wasn't an effective way to campaign: blacks in inner city areas don't have a lot of money, and traditionally don't vote Republican. I was told that's the accepted practice, but it makes no sense to me."

Even with making nearly all of his speeches and campaign appearances in affluent communities, Pastor Greer's campaign was able to raise only enough money -- $275,000 -- to hire a tiny staff, open an office, print some fliers, host some events, and run a single radio ad. With this small presence, his opponents and the media were free to define his message and candidacy. "To the liberal press, I was an unelectable nut -- a black, anti-gay, conservative Republican, evangelical Christian -- and they relayed that to the public," he said. There was no way, he added, to break stereotypes or flesh out his message.

Pastor Greer doesn't blame the media for his second-place finish in a crowded primary race, he blames campaign finance regulations. These rules limit political contributions to $1,000 from individuals and $5,000 from political action committees. "Every day I got letters and phone calls from people saying they wish they could give more but the law wouldn't let them," he recalled. The bitter irony, he said, was that he couldn't raise much money from rich people who shared his views and couldn't spread his message to poor communities where it might have taken root. "People should have the freedom to support whoever they want to support and give them as much as they want to give. If everyone knows who's giving the big money, their views and actions will come under more scrutiny," he said. Full disclosure of gifts, he said, would deter corruption without the anti-democratic side-effects of current regulations.

Needed: Trust in Democracy

Pastor Greer's political views may not appeal to everyone, but neither his views nor opposing views should be suppressed by government fundraising regulations, say Choice Three supporters. What's behind these regulations? Who are the "moneyed interests" that the prior choices find so fearful? Wealth is spread across America, among Independents, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Who are these "special interests" who hire lobbyists to do their selfish bidding? At its best, democracy is a fair competition of ideas and interests. Just about every professional, trade, business, consumer, religious, and issue advocacy organization has ideas on how the nation should spend public funds and make public policy. Every citizen has special interests, and many are members of organizations that hire lobbyists on their behalf. That's America.

Myths and scare tactics have gotten us into today's campaign finance mess, say Choice Three supporters. Our representative system of democracy has withstood the test of time and, until the 1970s, worked well without much regulation of campaign finance and without radically shifting power by widespread use of ballot initiatives and referenda. Then the Watergate scandal precipitated a rush to regulate political contributions, restricting everyone's freedom in a vain attempt to control money and political power. But freedom isn't easily regulated, and the reform effort backfired, in this view. The way regulations systematically distort politics is far, far more destructive to democracy than the occasional bribery scandal had ever been. Political gridlock is epidemic. Elections are tipped towards incumbents, celebrities, and the rich. Other good candidates don't run for office or can't raise enough money to compete. To revive democracy, we need more money for campaigns and less regulation to ease fundraising and spur discussion of differing perspectives.

Freedom, Disclosure, and Campaigns

The poet William Stafford has warned that, "If you purify the pond, the water lilies die." In a similar way, Choice Three supporters maintain that excessive regulatory efforts to purify elections of dirty money is wilting democracy. Nothing can stop political corruption -- which erupts relatively rarely in America -- but strictly enforcing fuller and faster disclosure of donations would strongly deter every possible type of campaign finance abuse, in this view. As it stands now, disclosure rules are pretty much of a joke across the nation, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit research organization. In fact, the center reports that most disclosure laws have actually been designed to thwart public awareness of political gifts.

Democracy's core problem is that, while nearly everyone agrees election campaigns are important, hardly anyone wants to pay for them. What is the source of money for this essential democratic endeavor? Only about 10 percent of Americans contribute time or money to political campaigns. This pattern is as old as American history, and candidates from all parties have bankrolled their own campaigns or turned to a relatively small group of donors.

What keeps the system honest? This pattern of fundraising, with its lack of populist appeal, stirs up significant public and partisan debate and media scrutiny -- all of which helps keep the whole system relatively healthy and honest. So it's a mistake to see this messy debate as a reason to impose regulations, which can only throw a monkey wrench into democracy's machinery.

Consider a partisan example: In the 1968 presidential primary campaign, Republican leaders were quick to criticize U.S. Senator Eugene J. McCarthy, a Democrat who raised record amounts of money, much of it from a handful of major donors who gave up to $500,000 each. An historical analysis of fundraising in Law.com, an Internet publication for lawyers, concluded, "Adjusted for inflation, the 1968 McCarthy campaign raised more money from private donors than George W. Bush has to date" -- that is, September 1999 in the presidential primary campaign.

"I couldn't have run for president if it hadn't been for big-money contributors," the 83-year-old McCarthy told Law.com in 1999. While he said there is no proof that "big money corrupts politics," he said there is plenty of evidence that federal campaign finance regulations have the effect of "putting limits on who people can vote for." Government's role, he said, should not be to control political discussion, but should be restricted to prosecuting corruption and ensuring that the public knows the source of all political donations.

Misjudging a Problem

Choice Three attributes some of today's problems to a highly controversial split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976. On one hand, the court struck down limits on campaign spending, finding that they would infringe on a candidate's free speech right to spread his message. On the other hand, the majority of justices broke with logic, in this view, by ruling it was permissible to put limits on citizens' contributions to candidates. The court said that such donations were protected, too, but could be limited for "compelling" reasons, including efforts to prevent corruption. But Choice Three agrees with Chief Justice Warren Burger, who dissented from the majority on this point. He wrote that government should not be allowed to limit citizens' contributions. He said such limits would have a "chilling effect" on grassroots political activity and discriminate against many candidates, especially challengers who often need large contributions to launch campaigns. In the last 25 years, Justice Burger's gloomy forecast has been proven accurate, say Choice Three supporters.

Limits on political donations and free speech are often justified by concerns that money can be used to buy elections or a legislators' vote on important matters. But Choice Three notes that many independent studies have concluded that the primary factors in determining a legislator's vote are: party affiliation, ideology, and constituent concerns. Donors, whether they are citizens or political action committees, generally contribute to favored causes and candidates who share their views.

Stop Controlling Political Ideas

Democracy is often called a marketplace of ideas, and like any marketplace, it needs some basic rules to deter fraud. But when government exerts too much control over the operations of a market -- whether it's a market for political ideas or airline tickets -- competition is stifled, monopolies develop, and service lags. Today's over-regulated political marketplace has created comparable distortions in politics, Choice Three says. The rules are so complex that candidates almost continually violate technical provisions and courts are continually having to interpret what they mean. Supporters say that proposed reforms would only make matters worse by trying to fix things that aren't broken, such as the following:

Political action committees serve a good purpose. These committees have been around since the 1950s and were encouraged and formalized by Congress in 1971. At that time Congress saw them as a way to increase the political influence of citizens, by allowing them to form organizations to collect small contributions and disburse large gifts to favored causes and candidates.

So-called "soft money" strengthens the democratic process. In 1974, Congress banned soft money, the unlimited contributions to political parties. But after the 1976 elections, it was clear the ban had inadvertently reduced political parties' ability to buy bumper stickers, hold rallies, advertise, and conduct many other traditional grassroots activities for increasing voters' awareness of issues. The ban was repealed in 1979, for good reason.

Issue ads are protected political speech. In 1974, Congress sought to limit the use of advertisements placed by individuals or organizations to advocate political positions. But the Supreme Court would not let the law take effect, ruling that nothing is more central to the right of free speech than the right to openly and freely advertise political views.

  Not enough money is invested in the democratic process. Apart from some extraordinarily expensive campaigns, total campaign spending around the country is quite low, according to the Cato Institute, a policy research organization in Washington, D.C. The institute's Peggy Ellis, referring to 1996 elections, wrote that "If you look at every race in the country, from dogcatcher to President, the amount spent is less than $10 per eligible voter. As a society, we spend more on potato chips ... than we do on politics."

What Can Be Done?

Choice Three supporters generally favor the following measures:

Strengthen democracy by permitting citizens, political action committees, and political parties to make unlimited contributions to candidates and to advertise their positions on any issue or candidate.

Strictly enforce a new requirement that all political contributions be promptly and fully disclosed.

Crack down on efforts to hide contributions by funneling money through front-organizations and third parties.

Require political advertisers to prominently disclose their identities and true sources of funding in their ads.

Impose heavy fines and jail sentences on anyone who violates disclosure laws.

Repeal all other campaign finance laws, as they distort politics without creating any benefit. In particular, repeal laws that require taxpayers to subsidize election campaigns of candidates, even ones they oppose.

In This View

Campaign finance reforms have backfired, systematically distorting politics in a far more destructive way than the occasional bribery scandal ever did. The way to deter corruption in a free country like ours is not with regulations that gum up the system but with a single, strictly enforced requirement for prompt disclosure of all political contributions.

Restrictions on fundraising promote political gridlock. Because laws sharply restrict how much citizens can contribute, challengers can't raise enough money to run competitive races and incumbents can't be dislodged.

Campaign finance laws defy compliance and, thus, tarnish politics as nearly all politicians exploit loopholes to raise the money they need to communicate with voters in election campaigns.

Exorbitantly expensive campaigns make headlines, but overall, political campaigns cost less than Americans spend on potato chips.

Americans have a right to free speech, which in this view includes unlimited freedom to express financial support for candidates. Limiting a citizen's contribution to $1,000 per candidate per election is like granting citizens permission to travel, but allowing them to spend only $1,000 per trip.

the U.S. Supreme Court, the Missouri attorney general acknowledged that there was no evidence of widespread corruption in the days when contributions were unlimited.

In Contrary Views

Letting the rich write bigger checks, as this choice advocates, is not likely to reduce Americans' anger about the moneyed interests getting their way in politics.

In our democracy all citizens are supposed to have an equal voice and equal access to their elected representatives. But when politicians are big-time fund-raisers, wealthy donors gain greater access and influence. It's time to reform campaign fundraising practices.

Choice Three argues that better public disclosure of gifts would make politics cleaner and more honest. Really? Right now politicians openly accept gifts from special interests with matters pending before government. Recall one infamous example: the banker Charles Keating raised large amounts of money for five U.S. Senators in the late 1980s. They subsequently pressured federal agencies to allow Keating's federally insured -- and soon-to-be-bankrupt -- savings and loan company to remain open. The senators' lobbying effort cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

This choice jeopardizes democracy by freeing the flow of money in politics without assuring citizens of any better way to hold elected officials accountable. Voters should have the final say, by being able to enact and repeal laws, and to recall officials.

Is money the equivalent of speech, as this choice suggests? Courts have ruled repeatedly that political contributions represent a generalized form of support, and are not political speech. "Money is property; it is not speech," U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 2000 decision upholding limits on individual contributions.

For Further Reading / Publicize All Political Donations, Don't Regulate Them

Filip Palda, How Much is Your Vote Worth? The Unfairness of Campaign Spending Limits (San Francisco, CA; Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1994).

Bradley Smith, "Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences" (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1995). This article can also be found online at www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238es.html

www.aclu.org is the Web site for the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated to protecting citizens' civil liberties. See online article, "What's Wrong with Pending Legislation That Seeks to Regulate Issue Advocacy?" at www.aclu.org/congress/cfr061698a.html

Summary

What Kind of Democracy?

Most Americans told poll takers in 1999 that elections are "for sale," and that, ultimately, government operates "for a few big interests" instead of for "the benefit of all people." What's broken? How can it be fixed? Americans aren't sure, judging by public opinion surveys, and their eyes glaze over when politicians delve into the jargon of soft money and political action committees.

The flow of money in public life isn't a technical problem for accountants and lawyers to sort out -- it is an issue that raises the most fundamental questions about the kind of democracy Americans want. To prime deliberations, here are some questions and answers that highlight the differences between the three choices outlined in this guide:

What does the role of money in politics have to do with citizen alienation?

Choice One says that the high costs of privately financed campaigns force politicians to curry favor with special interests instead of serving the public interest.
Choice Two says the biggest problem is that the huge amount of money that special interests spend in lobbying public officials subverts the public interest.
Choice Three blames problems on what it considers to be misguided efforts to regulate the flow of money in politics; these efforts have backfired, harming democracy far more than any isolated scandal ever did.

What should be the role of government?

Choice One calls for campaign finance reforms, which can include a wide menu of regulatory restrictions on political contributions as well as numerous options for publicly funding election campaigns.
Choice Two calls for many restrictions on lobbyists as well as holding politicians more accountable by expanding the right of voters to enact laws and recall elected officials.
Choice Three calls for requiring candidates to immediately disclose all gifts and for scrapping an arcane system of restrictions on contributions for political purposes.

Every direction for public policy has its downside.
What's a likely tradeoff for each choice?

In Choice One, which includes the option of public funding for all election campaigns, taxpayers would foot the bill for campaigns of candidates they favor and oppose, including fringe candidates and others who exploit the system.
In Choice Two, which would allow all voters to enact or repeal laws, citizens would be asked to decide complex issues with an up or down vote.
In Choice Three, which would permit unlimited political donations, the competition for raising and spending campaign funds would continue, giving an edge to candidates with the most contacts among wealthy donors.

Comparing the Choices

Alienation, distrust, and disillusionment are among the most common words used to describe American feelings about politics. How is the role of money in politics causing the problem? What can be done? To help citizens consider these questions, this discussion guide breaks the issue of money and politics down to some fundamental public policy perspectives, or choices. Each choice offers a different diagnosis of what's wrong, based on views and priorities voiced by many Americans in studies and surveys. Each choice also provides a direction for public action, or a way to approach the problem. These approaches include ideas and proposals that are drawn from across the political spectrum. Some elements of the choices are readily mixed, but not others, as each choice has its own priorities and agenda. An outline of the three choices appears on these pages.

Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising System Money is corrupting politics. The democratic principle of "one person, one vote" has become "one donor, much influence." Campaign finance reforms are needed to restore political equality.	Rein In Lobbyists and Politicians Campaign finance reform would just divert more special-interest money to lobbying, where the real problem is in politics. New curbs are needed on lobbyists and politicians to keep them honest	Publicize Political Donations, Don't Regulate Them Regulatory efforts to control money in politics have backfired, harming democracy far more than any isolated scandal ever did. We need to restore a freer system that worked well for two centuries.
What Can Be Done? Step up efforts to reform campiagn finance laws, which set the rules for playing politics honestly. Tighten rules on contributions. Consider permitting only individual citizens to make political contributions, limited to small sums. Consider replacing private contributions with a taxpayer-financed system of publicly funded election campaigns.	What Can Be Done? Ban lobbyists gifts, in all their disguises, including providing free services such as organizing political fund-raisers. Hold politicians accountable by expanding the use of recall votes and ballot measures, which would let voters enact state and federal laws. Require lobbyists and politicians to hold their meetings in public as a way to deter corruption and promote fairness.	What Can Be Done? Repeal all laws that clog and choke the democratic process with restrictions on political contributions. Encourage more investment in campaigns to make elections more competetive. Deter corruption by strictly enforcing a requirement that all political donations be disclosed immediately.
In This View It's time to close all loopholes in campaign finance laws, including ones that allow donors to write $500,000 checks to political parties. Publicly funding elections could save taxpayers money in the long run by reducing public spending for such things as special tax breaks for corporations. With tight curbs on gifts, elected officials would be freed from real and apparent conflicts of interest and be better able to focus on the public interest.	In This View Lobbyists for special interests should not be allowed to deluge public officials with gifts, and politicians should not be allowed to accept them. Campaign finance reforms are of little value because they will simply shift more special interest spending to lobbying. Ballot initiatives permit citizens to make laws when lawmakers are either unwilling or unable to follow the public will.	In This View Expensive campaigns make headlines, but overall, campaign spending is an inadequate investment, amounting to an estimated $10 per eligible voter every two years for all elections in the nation. Fund-raising rules promote political gridlock; challengers can't raise enough money to run competitive races. It takes money to compete in elections, but money can't buy them. The way to deter corruption is to require prompt disclosure of all political gifts.
In Contrary Views Prior regulatory reforms have failed, and this choice would gum up the system with more restrictions on everyone's political freedom. The campaign fund-raising competition serves a useful purpose; it gives voters a good sense of each candidate's leadership skills. This choice maligns "special interests," but there is nothing wrong with like-minded retailers, teachers, or fire fighters joining groups that promote their interests.	In Contrary Views This choice attacks lobbyists, but democracy couldn't run effectively without these professionals who speak on behalf of all segments of society. In attacking lobbyists, this choice is really just an attack against lobbyists who represent opposing views. Ballot measures don't give citizens any more power, as special interests often bankroll these campaigns to get what they want.	In Contrary Views Letting the rich write even bigger checks to politicians is no way to restore public confidence in a system bloated with special interest money. When politicians become big-time fund-raisers, special interests gain greater influence. Is better public disclosure really all that's needed to deter corruption? Then why is it that politicians now openly accept gifts from special interests with matters pending before government?
A Likely Tradeoff? Public funding for election campaigns would require taxpayers to foot the bill for campaigns of candidates they favor and those they oppose, including fringe candidates and others who would exploit the system.	A Likely Tradeoff? Sharp restrictions on lobbying would be difficult to enforce, and greater use of ballot measures would put complex issues to up or down votes at the polls.	A Likely Tradeoff? Permitting unlimited political donations would stimulate existing fund-raising competitions, giving the edge to candidates with the most wealthy connections

[ click here for Jan. 2004 posting ]

[ Home ]

Click here to enter this with hundreds of postings

Address Questions or comments to [  admin@pushhamburger.com  ]