The traditional approach to campaign finance limitations has been to go after the contributors, to limit who can contribute to a campaign and how much they can contribute. The rules are set to restrict certain types of organizations from donating too much or spending too much on behalf of a candidate and to specify limits on how much any individual can contribute to any candidate. This system is complex and inconsistent and full of loopholes. It permits bundling of donations, doesn't address certain types of contributions and allows for all sorts of in-kind and indirect spending which ought to be restricted. This system clearly doesn't work and every attempt to reform it makes it more complex and not significantly more effective.
The answer could be to approach it from the opposite direction. Instead of restricting who can contribute money and how much, why not just limit how much money a candidate can spend? Spending the millions of dollars some candidates spend just to get elected to Congress is excessive. Keep the limit appropriate to the significance of the office, but make it low enough so that incumbents and challengers can raise it without any great effort. Then ban all soft money and all spending for advertising by anyone other than the candidates campaigns. Make the candidates and their supporters work instead of just spending money. Get them out pressing the flesh and making speeches and earning their offices instead of going into debt or taking on more shady obligations.
Of course, this would cut back massively on advertising in the media for most campaigns, and that leads into the other problem that has to be addressed, media coverage. With advertising cut down, the coverage which the media voluntarily gives to candidates becomes enormously more important. The media could literally make or break campaigns, and despite their claims of impartiality, even something so small as the choice of which soundbyte to use or the amount of on-air time given to the incumbent over his challenger could create problems. This is the problem which has led to 'equal time' policies like the controversial and often proposed 'fairness doctrine', and they're a problem in and of themselves. They're as hard to apply fairly and evenly as the current campaign finance laws, and amount to a massive violation of press freedom, free trade and free speech.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DEE
Absolutely true. Couple points that solidfy this point. The vast majority of Americans want Socialized medicine, however, our politicians refuse to act because they are in bed with drug and insurance companies. The vast majority of Americans want the Iraq war to end. Again, it doesn't get done because the politicians are slaves to the defense and military supply companies. The politicans are supposed to be there to do what the people want. This is not happening anymore. Politicans are only for themselves now. When will we realize that we have to force them to change? They will not act on there own because it would be to their detriment. Something big has to happen for them to get the picture. We have come full circle, we again are under a system of taxation without representation.
2 - JustOneMan
Dee...
"The vast majority of Americans want Socialized medicine" NOT..the favor "universal healthcare" NOT a socialized system
Politicians are slaves to the defense and military supply companies. really? Name the names and proof that they are beholden these contractors...I know that idiot Murtha is can you name some more...
JOM
3 - Cindy D
Good article. I wonder if a television station devoted to candidate coverage, sort of a public government TV, might not work. You would have to get a number of signatures before you could get access. Then access could be equal to all the candidates who could use their time creatively.
Maybe real debates might be nice change, instead of those laughable debates where each candidate gets 30 seconds to answer. But, they could be free to participate in whatever way they choose.
JOM are you ever not hostile?
4 - DEE
Universal, Socialized, same thing look it up in a dictionary... I love how people in this country get their panties in a ruffle just by the work social. Oh my god. Socialized. Socialization is a good thing in this case and on the issue of healthcare. Stop being so scared of and demonizing that word. Naming the names are beside the point, I want to know why, when the American people clearly say they want something, the politicans do not make it happen. Aren't they supposed to work for and get done what the people want? I don't see it happening in our current corrupt system. Look it up yourself, there are 10 lobbyists for every 1 member of congress. Wake up people.
5 - Dave Nalle
The vast majority of Americans want Socialized medicine,
Not exactly true. The vast majority of Americans want to have health care available to them. Most of them do not think through how that care would be provided, and when asked specifically about different options they don't rate a single-payer government managed system highly. What most of them would like is to be able to have reasonably priced and good quality private insurance.
however, our politicians refuse to act because they are in bed with drug and insurance companies.
Different politicians have sold out to different special interests. For every one who is in the pocket of the drug and insurance companies there's one who's in the pocket of businesses which would love to have the state take over healthcare from them, or unions who see a lot of ptential power and profit in such a system.
The vast majority of Americans want the Iraq war to end.
Well of course they do. But if you break the numbers down, that rather abstract conclusion represents lots of different views on how the war should be handled, from people who want it to end through victory to those who just want to pull out right away. Hell, who doesn't want the war to end?
Again, it doesn't get done because the politicians are slaves to the defense and military supply companies.
This is a hoary old argument. But where were those industries during the 25 years of relative peace from the end of Vietnam until Iraq? The fact is that those companies aren't just military suppliers. They have plenty of work to do in times of peace too.
Dave
6 - Clavos
"Universal, Socialized, same thing look it up in a dictionary..."
Wrong.
"Socialized" is provided by the government. "Universal" isn't necessarily.
And JOM's right. What the majority of people want is health care for everybody, NOT health care provided by the government.
You want the same people who screwed up the response to Katrina curing your illnesses???
You want the people who guard the border operating on you???
7 - Clavos
A bit off topic, but here's an interesting quiz to take which will tell you how closely each of the candidates agree with your own positions on the major issues.
I was, to say the least, somewhat surprised by my own results; it seems that the two candidates whose platforms most agree with my ideas are Joe Biden and John McCain, with equal scores; followed by (in descending order): Giuliani, Hunter (tie), Romney, then a tie between Clinton & Obama. Dead last was Ron Paul.
8 - Baritone
Dave,
Good article. I agree with you on most of your points. While political campaigns were a far different animal before the media took control, I'm not sure, though, that things overall were that much better in government.
The advent of technology and the media has changed campaigning drastically. I believe that making significant changes in the current system will be very difficult. One could perhaps hope that it would collapse of its own weight.
Of course attempting to make most of the changes you suggest would run into innumerable road blocks. People from all directions would be crying foul about one thing or another.
The current presidential campaign is a prime example of why change should be made. The enormous amounts of money needed to maintain a competitive presence is obscene. Hell, the time and Hurculean effort involved in mountng a national campaign could leave the winner so mentally spent and emotionally and physically exhausted, that she (oh, okay, maybe he) might not be able to adequately execute the office, at least for a time. One would like to imagine a new president as hitting the ground running. But whoever takes office in January of '09 and much of their staff may well be running on empty.
You have obviously given this more thought than I, but I do believe that spending must be controlled in some fashion. It's impossible to believe that today a midwestern haberdasher could ascend to the White House. One would have to have sold a lot of hats.
Equally as daunting as the money needed to carry out even many seemingly small local elections is the time factor. Some kind of time limits should be put on campaigning, again as you suggest regarding money, time appropriate to the office.
But even a presidential campaign shouldn't take more than 3 to 4 months. With a myriad of media instantly available to our finger tips, we can, if we choose find out all we could ever want or need to know about any given candidate. We don't need to be hearing them prattle on endless appearances on the Sunday morning shows, dozens of ludicrous "debates," hundreds of sound bites and thousands of TV ads over the course of what, at the culmination of the current election, will have been at least 2 years. Give us a break!
The national conventions were at one time meaningful. Some often made for good theatre. But there is virtually no drama to be had in them today. It's often more interesting to see what's going on out in the streets than inside the halls. Usually, the most anticipated event is what new face or faces may get up to give keynote addresses - ala Obama's appearance at the last Demfab. For the most part, with the slates already decided, the conventions are just another waste of time and taxpayer's and contributor's money.
Even the primary system should be changed drastically. Therein lay some drama at least, but they are otherwise so archaic and varied in their approach that their results are often convoluted and indecipherable. Why not a national primary for the national elections? Makes sense to me.
Of course, it will likely be interesting to see how the internet continues to develop as a campaign tool. Making more effective use of it could perhaps change the whole campaign paradigm.
Baritone
9 - Baritone
Dave,
I wrote a fairly long comment (agreeing with you) but it won't publish. What's happening?
B-tone
10 - Clavos
Probably the spam trap, B-tone. It'll show up eventually.
Happens to me all the time. Seems to have accelerated since they added the Cocomment feature.
11 - Dave Nalle
It was indeed the spam filter. I rescued it. When that happens there's no point in posting it 5 more times, because once the spam filter has it in its head that the particular wordings are spam, it will flag them every time.
Dave
12 - Dave Nalle
The advent of technology and the media has changed campaigning drastically. I believe that making significant changes in the current system will be very difficult. One could perhaps hope that it would collapse of its own weight.
I think that if it were going to collapse on its own it would have already happened. But you're right about how hard it would be to change the system. Look how poorly McCain-Feingold worked out. It had the best of intentions behind it but was made things worse if anything.
The current presidential campaign is a prime example of why change should be made. The enormous amounts of money needed to maintain a competitive presence is obscene.
Clinton's argument - and I'm not sure I buy it - was that the President is more remote from the process of government and thus less cost effective to subborn. Plus the sheer amount of money required for a presidential campaign is in some ways a good thing. A candidate has to get money from so many sources that no single source can really stand out and have preeminent influence. They all sort of cancel out.
That's why I agree with Clinton that the House of representatives is the place to start. Because their terms are so short, a larger percentage of their time is consumed by campaigning than any other elected officials. They ought to be the test group for any reforms.
Hell, the time and Hurculean effort involved in mountng a national campaign could leave the winner so mentally spent and emotionally and physically exhausted, that she (oh, okay, maybe he) might not be able to adequately execute the office, at least for a time.
Let's not forget William Henry Harrison who caught pneumonia making his inaugural address in the rain, went into a coma and was dead 30 days later.
You have obviously given this more thought than I, but I do believe that spending must be controlled in some fashion. It's impossible to believe that today a midwestern haberdasher could ascend to the White House. One would have to have sold a lot of hats.
Midwestern Haberdasher? Lincoln? Not sure that's how I'd describe his job managing a general store. Smacks of hyperbole. BTW a hat merchant is a milliner.
And Lincoln DID raise money. He had backing from local politicians and the whig/republican machine in Illinois who ultimately rigged the nominating process because the convention was held in Chicago.
But even a presidential campaign shouldn't take more than 3 to 4 months.
So true. This 2 year campaign is just ridiculous.
dozens of ludicrous "debates,"
I actually kind of like the debates. They're one of the best ways to get a real feel for the candidates.
The national conventions were at one time meaningful. Some often made for good theatre. But there is virtually no drama to be had in them today.
I'm not that concerned about the theatre, but I do think a change in the structure of both parties primaries would be good. If more states could be convinced to move away from the winner-take-all model for choosing delegates and apportion delegates based on the popular vote it would produce closer results and more balloting, which I think would produce better results. The current system is unbalanced and gives too much influence to party insiders.
Dave
13 - REMF
"I was, to say the least, somewhat surprised by my own results; it seems that the two candidates whose platforms most agree with my ideas are Joe Biden and John McCain, with equal scores; followed by (in descending order): Giuliani, Hunter (tie), Romney, then a tie between Clinton & Obama. Dead last was Ron Paul."
Why surprised? Because there were no deserters among them?
14 - Baritone
Dave,
Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a seller of men's clothes - including hats. I can remember his being referred to derisively as "that hat salesman."
By the way, obviously my comment did eventually show up.
B-tone
15 - troll
*...the politicians are slaves to the defense and military supply companies.
This is a hoary old argument. But where were those industries during the 25 years of relative peace from the end of Vietnam until Iraq? The fact is that those companies aren't just military suppliers. They have plenty of work to do in times of peace too.*
whether or not an argument is tedious or stale has no impact on its validity...but false premises do
for example - there has been no peace since Vietnam...the US has maintained a constant 'war footing' around the world with bases to build and maintain and weapons systems to upgrade
additionally - these industries have a long list of foreign customers to arm and supply who burn off product regularly not infrequently in conflicts amongst themselves
...only a participant would come up with an argument that the people in these industries are other than war profiteers - imo this includes all from investors to workers...none of whom are prevented from taking their money or labor elsewhere
16 - Clavos
"...only a participant would come up with an argument that the people in these industries are other than war profiteers - imo this includes all from investors to workers...none of whom are prevented from taking their money or labor elsewhere"
OK, troll, I accept your argument.
I'm a war profiteer.
I also profit from people's illnesses (including my wife's; I immediately bought stock in the manufacturer when her intrathecal pump was implanted), which I suppose also makes me a misery profiteer?
It's a wonder I can sleep at night.
17 - troll
...I think that that part of your portfolio makes you a health profiteer
18 - Dave Nalle
Since I switched half of my Halliburton stock to KBR stock at an instant 17% profit I prefer to think of myself as a Merchant of Death rather than a war profiteer.
But the fact remains true that companies like Halliburton do extremely well whether there is a war on or not, or whether the war that's going on involves the US or not. The same services they provide in a war are needed in disasters and in all sorts of other critical areas.
As for whether we were at war between Vietnam and Iraq, you could argue that we've been at war since 1945, but it wasn't always a shooting war, and that was certainly true overall between Vietnam and Iraq. Panama and Granada hardly count as wars because they had minimal impact on war purchasing.
Dave
19 - Clavos
Grenada. I don't think we've ever invaded Spain.
(sorry! I just can't help myself-I'm even in a twelve step program) :>)
20 - bliffle
Put all contributions in a Blind Fund so that the candidate gets the benefit without owing allegiance to the contributor.
End the egregious notion of Corporate Personage.
21 - troll
...you'll be happy to know that your company is just now finishing up its contracts assisting Iran in building its natural gas infrastructure...and don't I remember something about centrifuges - ?
your country thanks you for your patriotic investments
22 - Clavos
"Put all contributions in a Blind Fund so that the candidate gets the benefit without owing allegiance to the contributor."
Good idea.
23 - Al Barger
Brother Nalle, I'm surprised to see you biting on all this "campaign reform" nonsense. Much of what you flirt with here certainly IS expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. How could you possibly argue that limiting what or how much which media can report would not constitute Congress making a law abridging freedom of the press?
The problem is inherent in what Congress actually does at this point. They spend approximately 1 trillion times more than they did at the founding of the republic, and certainly have way more money and favors to pass out. That being the case, the kind of intense moneyed rat-race is the inevitable and more or less appropriate outcome. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that there will be much more and tougher fighting over a much bigger public pie.
Best I can tell from the tea leaves, the amount of money in federal campaigns is still fairly small - compared to the money and influence over which they're fighting. There's just flatly no way to reduce the influence of money and power on elections other than to reduce the amount of money and power for which they are competing. If Congress had only half the spending and regulatory power, most likely the money and lobbying would fall by half as well.
There's no good solution to this under current circumstances, but there are certainly a lot of ways to make the whole situation a lot worse - exactly the kind of stuff trying to jimmy the system you or Bill Clinton might prescribe. And if congress critters don't like the "sleep deprivation" that Clinton described, then they can always quit and go find honest work.
24 - troll
gotta go with hermano Al - if you want to decrease the corrupting influence of money in government then shrink government...preferably to zero
25 - Clavos
"gotta go with hermano Al - if you want to decrease the corrupting influence of money in government then shrink government...preferably to zero"
Works for me....