January 21, 2006
Good Idea, Despite Where it Came From
James Carville & Paul Begala: Not one Dime –
We propose fundamentally and radically reforming the way that campaigns are financed. Our proposal combines the fondest dream of liberal reformers—public financing of campaigns—with the fondest dream of conservative and libertarian reformers—no restrictions at all on donations from American citizens. The goal is to put a little distance between power and money. Federal office holders have power but need money. Special interests have money but need power. When the two come together, trading money for power, bad things happen.
Here’s how our plan would work:
First, we raise congressional pay big time. Pay ‘em what we pay the president: $400,000. That’s a huge increase from the $162,000 congressmen and senators currently make. Paul, especially, has been a critic of congressional pay increases. But he is willing to more than double politicians’ pay in order to get some of the corrupt campaign money out of the system. You see, the pay raise comes with a catch. In return, we get a simple piece of legislation that says members of Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.
And when it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. You read that right. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. Period.
Challengers, on the other hand, would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits, just as the free-market conservatives have always wanted. But here is the catch: Within 24 hours of receiving a contribution, the challenger would have to report it electronically to the Federal Election Commission, which would post it for the public to see. That way, if you want to accept a million dollars from, say, Paris Hilton, go for it. But be prepared for voters and reporters to ask what you promised her in exchange.
The day after you disclose Paris’s million bucks, the U.S. Treasury would credit the incumbent’s campaign account with a comparable sum—say 80 percent of the contribution to the challenger to take into account the cost of all the canapés and Chardonnay the challenger had to buy to raise his funds as well as the incumbent’s advantage. So if Paris gave the challenger a mill, the Treasury would wire $800,000 to the incumbent. It couldn’t be much simpler. You might even call it the flat tax of campaign laws.
The penalties for violation would be swift. If an incumbent accepts so much as a postage stamp, he loses his seat. If a challenger doesn’t report contributions, he loses his shot. If you cheat, you are out on your ass.
What if the incumbent wants to spend her own money? After all, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution does not allow restrictions on how much money a candidate—challenger or incumbent—can spend. No problem. Uncle Sam would write the challenger a check for an equivalent amount. Unlike today, no one would have the upper hand simply because they were loaded.
What if a sitting congressman wants to run for senator, or a senator wants to run for president? Would he be allowed to raise funds? Sure. He’d just have to do what Bob Dole eventually did—resign his Senate seat and hit the campaign trail like a regular citizen. If you want to run for higher office, you have to get off your current pedestal first.
I don’t normally look to Carville & Begala for instructions on how to change one iota of our government. Nor do I have any love for public financing of elections. But I do know a good idea when I see one, and this appears to be a hell of a lot better than our current system. I can see it now… What will XYZ Corporation, who wants to give $1 million to a business-friendly Republican candidate, think when they know $800,000 will automatically go to his opponent, the Democrat incumbent? Do you think Planned Parenthood will offer monetary support to their abortion-friendly Democrat candidate when they know that 80% of their donation will also be given to the Republican incumbent?
This idea came from an unexpected place, but is worth a look. Maybe with a tweak here and there, it might be an idea (like term limits) that would reform our entire system. Of course, that means it will never be enacted (also like term limits), but it’s worth a shot.
Hat Tip: Ezra Klein
Below The Beltway linked with Fixing What's Wrong In Washington
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
with a two year term in the american house of reps, they only have time to raise money and run for office.
Brad,
There is one fundamental flaw in this plan for me, and that is in the use of public funds to fund elections in anyway. Effectively, that means that when I pay taxes, at least some portion of my money is going to go to candidates I do not support and who are totally against my fundamental values. In my ideal world, there would be no public funding of elections whatsoever.
The corruption scandals we’re seeing and the large amount of money that flow in and out of election campaigns are a direct result of the fact that the government has such a large impact over the lives and fortunes of so many people. As long as the Federal Government is handing out favors and money hand over fist, there will be people vying for influence to get it.
Oh, I’m not one to like the idea of public funding of campaigns, but I see a tradeoff here.
Once you get elected, you never have to rely on fundraising or selling influence to get re-elected. In fact, you’re barred from receiving any funds from anyone for your campaign. There’s no “if you don’t vote this way we won’t contribute”. It breaks the quid pro quo relationship, as you’re not relying on the people who financed your first campaign to continue financing future campaigns.
I’ll put it another way, as I know you’re a college football fan. The NCAA has very serious rules about how you can recruit athletes, and against having boosters/etc give them any financial incentive to come to a school. Does that make it a perfect process? No, because Ohio State consistently gets much higher-rated recruits than Purdue, and Purdue consistently gets much higher-rated recruits than, say, Miami of Ohio. Recruits come to play for OSU for the “intangibles”, i.e. being in the Big Ten, getting TV time, knowing they’re in a program that sends people to the NFL. Is it a “fair” process? No, but it’s a lot better than if the NCAA allowed boosters complete free reign to throw down money to attract players.
Fixing What’s Wrong In Washington
Brad at The Unreprentant Individual writes about this article by James Carville and Paul Begala wherein the two former Clinton advisors make this proposal to fix what’s wrong with our political system:
First, we raise congressional pay big time …
All this will do is move direct funding in exchange for favors further from the light, in my opinion.
Doug is absolutely right, as long as Federal politicians wield immense (and unconstitutional) power there will be corruption and corrupt money in politics. Power creates a vacuum that draws money. Besides, most of the corruption is more along the lines of $100 dinners for minor bureaucrats who influence contracts and regulations on a daily and direct basis.
I say that we get rid of all campaign funding limits in any way, shape, or form, whether incumbent or challenger. We mandate that all campaign funds be publicly disclosed. We vigorously pursue any hint of conspiracy. And we let the chips fall where they may.
What I meant about “most of the corruption” is that most of the worst corruption … I realized the way I wrote it sounded like most of the money went to those bureaucrats, which isn’t true. But the corruption that impacts each of us daily is happening at that level. And it is happening because those bureaucrats wield immense power and funding. Take that away, return the power to the states and you eliminate the vast majority of the most egregious corruption in the Federal government. You also make it much harder for those who want to use their money for special privileges. Now they have to target 50 state bureaucracies instead of 1 federal one.
Brad,
The problem with the Carville-Begala proposal is that it doesn’t address the fundamental underlying problems. To use the NCAA analogy you did, we both know that big-time college players get compensated in ways that get around the rules and that they get breaks that regular college students don’t. Because of the money involved, nobody has the incentive to address those aspects of the college football system (the fact that it generates huge amounts of money for colleges while the players get nothing).
The same is true in politics. Even if we did adopt what Carville and Begala propose, which I don’t think we should, people would still find a way to curry favor with politicians in ways that gain them advantage. There’s too much money involved and too much at stake not to happen.
Doug,
To continue with the NCAA analogy, it’s surely the case that the system still isn’t completely “fair”. But would you agree that it’s a damned sight better than if athletes were recruited by the school willing to be the highest bidder?
I’m not saying this would fix the system. But if it would make a substantial improvement to the process, it might be worth looking at. Of course, we’d have to keep our eyes out for the unintended consequences (as 527’s were for McCain-Feingold), but that’s true with any legislation. And of course, the biggest unintended consequence of all is if all campaigns eventually became purely publicly funded. I don’t know how to answer that concern, as I share it.
I agree that the problem is that there is that much money doled out by Congress to begin with, but short of ending withholding or enacting the FairTax, I don’t see how we can make the true cost of government more transparent to the voters, which is the real problem.
Sure we know how to do make the real cost of government more transparent to voters.
1. End income tax witholding. Make the taxpayers write a check on April 15. Today most taxpayers look forward to their tax refund, viewing it as “extra money”. Imagine how they would view April 15 if they had to write a $10,000 check to Uncle Sam.
2. Stop the unconstitutional power that has been taken on by the Federal government. Then, if we still want it, the states will have to fund it. State spending is much more closely scrutinized, in general, than Federal spending is.
Either of those things would be huge. Both, together would dramatically change politics in this country.
Brad,
What about the argument that political contributions are, in essence, a form of political speech entitled to constitutional protection. The Supreme Court recognized this as far back as Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and, as far as I know, the decision in the case affirming most of McCain-Feingold did not necessarily overrule that holding.
Under this argument, restricting my ability to make a campaign contribution to an incumbent Congressman — let’s pick Ron Paul as an example — is a restriction on my First Amendment rights. And, providing taxpayer money to an incumbent candidate I don’t support — let’s pick Nancy Pelosi as an example — forces me to subsidize speech I disagree with and also violates my rights.
Even if one conceded that the Carville-Begala approach would work, which I don’t think it would, it is worth it if the cost is violation of individual liberty ?
Doug…
Good point… I didn’t even think of that argument.
Perhaps I should simply retreat from this whole idea?
Brad,
I can’t say its an original argument, but its one that made sense to me the first time I heard it. Unfortunately, when ruling on McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court seems to have had a slight case of amnesia.