The whole system is enormously complex, with rules which make no sense at all. You can hide where money came from by having a PAC collect it and then give it to the candidate, or by having a PAC spend money directly on ads against your opponent while the campaign spends its money for its candidate. There are strict limits on what corporations and individuals can give the candidates, but they can give huge amounts to PACs and that gets around the restrictions. Or you can just have all your employees and relatives give the maximum amount until it adds up to millions.
All of this is ostensibly to try to make elections more fair, but all it really does is give an edge to those who know how to use the loopholes and game the system. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a campaign contribution is essentially free speech, so why not just scrap the entire burdensome mess and take that to its logical extreme and really make the system free and open?
Let people and businesses and groups and PACs and unions and anyone else spend all the money they want for any cause or candidate they like, directly or indirectly. You may complain that this means they can "buy" an election, but the truth is that one way or another they can already get around the restrictions, and with PACs in the game the federal restrictions actually limit small donors more than they limit big groups or corporations.
There should be just one restriction. All donations should be public. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to that speech being private if it's in the form of money being spent in a public election. All candidates and all PACs and any other group financing campaigns or political activism should be require to publicly disclose all of their donors on their web site with contact information so that anyone can research them. If the money came from a PAC or a group, that organization should be required to provide its sources as well, so that no matter how many hands the money goes through, it's all accessible for those willing to do the research.
Article comments
1 - Doug Hunter
Honesty, transparency, AND freedom.... nah, it'll never fly here. The concept sounds nice though.
2 - Baronius
On what grounds should a person have to disclose his campaign contributions? In California, contributors to Proposition 8 have been harassed, some driven out of business. Our Founders wrote anonymously, a tradition that's carried on today on the internet. It wasn't the clout of a particular founder that carried the day; it was the strength of his argument in print. The same should be true in campaigning.
We've been discussing the role of the secret ballot in the decision to join a union. The consensus is that the right to avoid intimidation is so basic a part of our beliefs that it extends outside the voting booth, to unionization rules. Shouldn't it extend to financial support of candidates?
3 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, campaign contributions from individuals aren't private now, so for them it's no change at all in the law as far as privacy goes. But making PAC contributions public and accessible would make a huge difference.
Dave
4 - John Wilson
Campaigns should be publicly financed because all private contributions are corrupting.
5 - Baronius
John, it occurs to me that I've asked you several times to flesh out a short comment you've made. If you don't want to, fine. I am curious, though, what you think is corrupting about private contributions. My $5 check isn't going to make some pro-choice candidate vote pro-life; it supports a candidate who is going to vote pro-life anyway. No one's going to sell his soul for $5. Anyway, the voters aren't under any obligation to support the candidate with the most ads. I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I just don't understand your position.
6 - druxxx
Information should be key to voting.
Informed voters have a right to know where a candidate gets his/her money.
In this day and age, we will know more about how a candidate will vote based on where they get their money, then what they say or write.
I agree with John that money is corrupting.
But our tax money is stretched thin as it is. I agree with Dave to the extent that large contributions must be made public.
How about any company, corporation, or individual contributing more then $500 total for one election.
That way the little guy giving a small amount can avoid intimidation and the big corporation with deep pockets trying to buy votes will be known.
And all of this kepps the idea of free speech intact.
7 - Silas Kain
Our Founders wrote anonymously, a tradition that's carried on today on the internet. It wasn't the clout of a particular founder that carried the day; it was the strength of his argument in print. The same should be true in campaigning.
Hear hear! In my mind it's more than just election finance reform. It's about overhaul of the entire system. We need to return to politics at the District level. And we need to insure that prospective candidates each have a fair shot at the ballot. How we accomplish this feat is where it gets murky.
I also believe, strongly, that our Presidential Primary System demands overhaul. To afford Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina pivotal roles in delivering national party nominees takes the power away from the rest of us. We need a system like Great Britain or Canada. We need shorter election seasons and stringent regulations on how campaigns are financed and promoted. It's about level playing fields devoid of monetary influence.
8 - John Wilson
The 'Media' focuses on The Race, not the principles and issues. It's the easiest thing to do, to avoid charges of partisanship and thus avoid losing readers/listeners/viewers, i.e., customers.
Which is why I never read/listen/view the 'media'.
9 - Les Slater
Dave #3,
"...campaign contributions from individuals aren't private now, so for them it's no change at all in the law as far as privacy goes."
Not entirely true, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that some minor parties such as the Socialist Workers Party cannot be forced to reveal names of campaign contributors.
10 - handyguy
Of course, when Democrats tried to craft a bill in response to the Citizens United ruling, calling on all corporate contributors to be revealed and to take ownership of their 'free speech,' Republicans like John Boehner howled that they were attacking 'our freedoms.' [The giant loophole custom-built for the NRA made the Dems' bill look very foolish indeed, but that's a separate matter.]
Just keep in mind that the 'free speech' we're talking about consists almost entirely of 30-second attack TV ads. These have profoundly poisoned the political culture in this country, and I can't think of anything good about them.
In addition, members of congress are forced to spend more time fundraising than legislating. And of course this is corrupting.
I agree that all the methods tried so far have been flawed. But just giving up in the wake of the abominable Citizens United ruling is not an option.
11 - Joanne Huspek
I doubt anyone can change anything. Both parties benefit, and they won't get rid of their cash cow. I do agree that if the payola and lobbying ended, things might improve. Right now the money tree says this is the thing to do.
12 - Nelson Lee Walker
Here’s a practical Tea Party type strategy to create a “Citizen Congress”
A Congress of career politicians will never represent “We the People”, because their highest priority is getting reelected with the help of Big Money.
But “We the People” have more votes than “Big Money” has, and thus can end Congress as a career for professional politicians by never reelecting incumbents.
We can impose single terms every two years, by never reelecting Congress.
Always vote, but only for challengers. Never reelect incumbents.
Keep this up until Congress is mostly “one-termers”, a citizen Congress.
Then keep it up every election, to make a citizen Congress a permanent reality.
Every American’s only intelligent choice is to never reelect anyone in Congress!
The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress,
and a cleaned up new politics is
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION
Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
13 - John Wilson
Actually, electing non-incumbents may shift more power to the money boys since a good candidate wouldn't have his record to support him.
I'm not sure why a one-term congress would be less corrupt. It may be that each congressperson just has to steal more since they only get one shot.