Not One Dime?

There are very few issues about which I have stronger feelings than campaign finance reform. I believe that the current money/politics matrix is totally corrosive of democracy and encourages a powerful cynicism that makes any reform extremely difficult. It's also why I believe that the Buckley vs. Valeo decision equating campaign contributions with protected free speech is one of the most damaging Supreme Court decisions in history.

So while I am generally supportive of the lobbying reforms proposed by Democrats, I wonder at its substantive or political efficacy. Politically, I don't think one set of lobbying reforms is different enough from another to distinguish Republican and Democratic ideas in the minds of voters. Substantively, I don't banning gifts will make that much difference in the role lobbyists play. It's just a symbolic gesture.

No, the real problem is money: campaign fundraising is what distorts and corrupts the political system, not lobbying per se. Do something about campaign finance, and you are really attacking the roots of corruption. Do something about campaign finance, and you will be able to put a sharp line between us and them.

Which is what is so intriguing about the Carville-Begala proposal over at the Washington Monthly. They offer the following ideas:

1) ban all gifts to incumbents
2) raise congressional salaries to $400,000 so that the gifts aren't necessary
3) ban all fundraising by incumbents
4) require challengers to report all contributions within 24 hours
5) the federal government will give incumbents 80% of challenger funds raised
6) match self-financing (i.e. millionaire candidates) 100%, whether they be incumbent or challenger
7) incumbents who want to run for higher office

I think this is the beginning of a good proposal, assuming it passes constitutional muster. Presented properly, the Abramoff etc. scandals could finally be the opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform.

But I do have a number of qualms about the proposal. First of all, why in the world do we want to raise congressional salaries. Do congressman who make $120,000 (is it more now?) a year really need extra goodies? After all, median income is $53,000. Surely over a hundred grand is enough.

Does this plan effect primaries? If challengers to incumbents can't raise funds, then the system will break down. Further, does it apply to open seats? After all, interest groups are very good at backing friendly candidates in the initial seat, guaranteeing their boy or girl gets in, making the later ban on fundraising less important.

The ban on fundraising even if one wants to run for higher office is a heck of a penalty. It would act as such a powerful disincentive for politicians to run for higher office, meaning that a lot more amateurs would run. It would actually magnify the importance of money, since wealthy amateurs would have a tremendous advantage (and settled candidates wouldn't run at all).

These are minor criticisms - I think in outline the plan is a good one. I would prefer, however, to have a system in which anyone who filed to run for office and received a certain number of signatures (proving that they aren't a looney - or at least that they are a well-organized, popular looney), would receive vouchers from the government for television advertising, campaign staff, etc. Even incumbents would be eligible, but they would be banned from raising additional dollars (as would anyone else using the system). This would remove the problem with running for higher office, while still preserving the system.

If it is constitutional, the restriction on incumbent behavior, combined with a matching system to cope with challengers, seems to a be a pretty brilliant solution to the campaign finance problem. I wonder whether the Democratic leadership is smart enough to pick it up.