10 Comments:

• Ok, like, I read your post and re-read it and have come to the conclusion that you are one overly-smart dude!

  By  Penguin, at 9:39 PM  

• Interesting thoughts, Publius. I believe separating 'profit' from politics would be most beneficial to the Nation as a whole. But let me explain also that I find my political leanings to veer towards Libertarian thinking (but I'm registered Independant, yeah, a fence-sitter).
  
  I like the idea of reducing the power of government, and money IS power. I find the FairTax Plan (H.R. 25) is a terrific idea. It may not be without it's flaws, but what piece of legislation was ever perfect? Even the Constitution has amendments (not that we use that much anymore).
  
  I'm not qualified to make any arguments for or against a system of public financing. But I do believe that our elected officials need a much better system of accountability for their actions, both what they say on record and how they vote.
  
  What is the problem here? The way I understand, large donors are accused of attempting to sway politicians through excessive campaign contributions (money). It seems to create the effect that these generous donors get more than one vote. Perhaps if all donors could remain 100% anonymous. Their implied personal backgrounds and agendas might also remain anonymous, even to the candidate.
  
  But that would be impossible. It takes no effort to slip a note or whisper in the ear of a candidate that his greatest benefactor happens to be so-&-so. Then, the will of the less generous voters becomes MUCH less important... after election day.
  
  Anonymity is the closest answer I can give for now. But I don't know how that could possibly be facilitated.

  By  Cliffynator, at 9:50 PM  

• I didn't know your diss was a political in nature--we'll have to talk shop!

  By  Weezy, at 10:22 PM  

• Penguin: Thanks. I think.
  
  Cliffynator: I'll leave aside what I view as the incoherent mess that is libertarianism for the moment - I've written about it before. But as for campaign finance, I am not speaking to the issue of corruption per se, but the fact that the political debate is shaped by "pay to play" rules. As it stands now it doesn't matter what a candidate says or believes or whatever, unless they have the financial support. Which I don't think sounds much like democracy to me. Y'know, political equality and all that? I don't see how anonymous donations solves the problem, since candidates with positions that favor wealthy interests will still have a massive advantage.
  
  Weezy: Yup. I am a political scientist with a specialty in congressional elections. I can't say any more here or I'll blow my cover :)

  By  Arbitrista, at 10:31 PM  

• Cool! I describe myself as a historian interested in women's political history in the twentieth century. My dissertation focuses on an urban city and acertain group of women's activities. I always like to say that I do small 'p' politics- more an Elsa Barkley Brown type if that rings a bell.

  By  Weezy, at 8:54 AM  

• Back at cha, Publius. I agree that political equality is very important to a true Democracy. I'll disregard the issue that some argue we are a 'Republic', not a 'Democracy', but I thought I'd just mention it to see if I get a rise out of you. Heh.
  I already said that anonymous donations will not solve the problem, because they really won't remain anonymous and the politician will find himself influenced. But, perhaps I am addressing the wrong problem?
  
  Is it that you are concerned that the under-funded candidate is at a significant disadvantage to the power-backed opponent? The extra money backing a campaign might influence the VOTERS to come out & vote, or even vote a certain way because of all the glitz that was made on the candidate. You might have 80% of the constituents wanting one candidate, but the one guy with a few Billion to blow (cough SOROS cough cough) might manage to boost the other candidate's outcome by XX% through excessively funded mudslinging TV ads and annoying phone calls, magazine ads, mailers, and 'rock the vote' ads. Oh wait, that last one counts as soft money. Ok, ok, enough of the sarcasm.
  
  But if both candidates were required to draw equal amounts from [the same?] pool of cash, then we might see a 'fair' contest. How does that sound?
  
  Yeah, it's a suggestion that supports Creeping Socialism coming from a Capitalist. But I think it's ok if you're making the elected officials have to use it. I mean, who's great idea was it to exempt Congress from the national Social Security plan? Oh, wait, now I remember.. but I digress.

  By  Cliffynator, at 1:09 AM  

• Yeah that's pretty much what I'm getting at. I don't want any candidate to have a greater ability to convey his message simply because of his access to wealth. It should be the content of communication that influences voters, not the volume of communication.
  
  As for your remarks about Soros and soft money, I would point you to the fact that while the Republicans made far more use of soft money, and that there are far more billionaires and millionaires supporting the Republicans than the Democrats. The fact that you can name a billionaire liberal says something, because there are so many billionaire Republicans we can't remember them all. It is the fact that Soros is exceptional that makes him stand out. If he were conservative, nobody would notice.
  
  And I fail to understand how public financing of campaigns is "creeping socialism." Socialism refers to the state directly controlling key sectors of the economy, which I don't see here.

  By  Arbitrista, at 9:53 AM  

• Both of you are conflating three related issues, and those issues are the three elements of a successful modern campaign. Those elements include (1) a vulnerable opponent (whether an incumbent or not), (2) the ability to attract volunteers in addition to the paid staff, and (3) a coherent, appealing political message. In an ideal democracy only the message would matter, but in out modern republic, money is usually seen as the best way to make the opponent vulnerable, attract volunteers (based on the perceived ability to win), and create a message (with the help of paid consultants). The idea that "the political message" should be the deciding factor is the academic's way of judging the public sphere, because the academic values the message over everything else. In contrast, outside of the academy, money can help you with all three elements, but it is not the deciding factor. Ross Perot had all three factors going for him in 1992, and he still only achieved 19% of the popular vote without winning a single electoral vote. Money is the deciding factor for an election when the media (television, radio, newspaper ads) become proxies for the other 2 elements - you don't have the volunteers or the coherent message, but you make the opponent look so bad that the electorate is forced to vote for you or stay home. When congressional districts are gerrymandered at the state level, money becomes the best way to knock down the incumbent from the opposition party. Yet, even in gerrymandered districts, money doesn't mean you will win the election. If you really want to win an election and you are poor, the best bet is to "pay your dues" by helping constituents with all of their problems from the lowest office to the higher offices. That helps you build a political base and attract volunteers. As you work with constituents, you find the components of a coherent political message. This is largely the reason there are political differences in a single state at the local/state level versus the federal level. The local and state offices don't require great wealth. They require lots of work and service. The national offices require wealth because the campaign is almost always conducted through the media.
  
  So, the best way to take away the influence of money on federal politics (which is where it matters most) is to mandate that all media offer free advertising to candidates. They already have to do this under the FCC's public service requirements (e.g. the Sunday morning talk shows). It's a simple step to require all the networks to provide free advertising, or at least equal advertising, for all federal elections.

  By  Marriah, at 9:25 PM  

• I think that giving away "free" advertising by placing mandates on the press is utterly impractical.This proposal was strenuously opposed by the press because it simply took money out of their pockets. It also doesn't solve what I think is the real problem because if you just did it for general elections, it would miss the fact that elections are usually decided in primaries, and if you did it for primaries as well the media would no longer be able to run any advertising at all - there'd be no room left.
  
  And Perot is a bad example because 1) he was running for President - a very high position to start your political career from, and 2) his 19% of the vote was remarkable given the fact that he was launching a direct assault on the 2 major political parties. Perot's candidacy more proves by contention that money has become the key element of politics than disproves.
  
  As for your other arguments, I think that you are being naive when you say that constituent service alone is enough to build the basis of a political organization and launch a candidacy. There are thousands of candidates who have a good message, volunteers, a grass-roots organization, and who have nevertheless been clobbered by a better-financed opponent. THere is just no way that any grass-roots organization can be broad enough to give you the name recognition you need to launch a viable candidacy.

  By  Arbitrista, at 10:31 AM  

• Since I worked in the news media before becoming an academic, it is obvious why the media would oppose any attempt to provide free advertising for all federal elections (which would include primary elections). The proliferation of media outlets (cable, radio, Internet, network TV, magazines, etc.) means that the media no longer have the luxury of presenting an objective perspective on politics, as Ed Murrow did 50 years ago. Instead, the media live and die by advertising dollars based on TV ratings. Of course they won't want to lose that money. But it is a necessary first step toward a real democracy. Apart from the media, money is least important at the level of city council and state legislatures. That doesn't mean it is unimportant. However, every person I have ever met who has run for office at the local level has told me how important it is to actually go door to door to meet voters. The more people you meet this way, the more people vote for you during the primary campaign. This is also because name recognition usually does not factor in to the lower offices. If a person has lots of money, the last thing he or she is going to do is spend millions of dollars trying to win the race for local dog catcher, or treasurer. The people with the money aim for the congressional seats, not the local races. As a result, there usually isn't any name recognition to help or hurt candidates at the local level. You get elected based on how many people you meet and serve.
  
  On the other hand, you are correct that money matters most at the federal level (especially in Senate races). If we are talking about congressional races, then money can be an important factor. Some states (such as Florida or North Dakota) have a de facto division between state and federal offices: people who succeed locally aren't viable on the federal level. Usually, however, local service leads to a base that serves as a launching pad to federal office. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ, was elected this way. He spend years as a county supervisor serving Hispanic constituents, and then those constituents provided the margin for him to win the open congressional seat in 2000.
  
  I am not disputing that money matters. I am simply saying it doesn't matter as much as you say it does, and there are ways around it if you are willing to devote your life to a career of public service, starting from the lowest positions and working your way up.

  By  Marriah, at 2:43 AM  

Post a Comment
<< Home