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.

Good point… I didn’t even think of that argument.

Perhaps I should simply retreat from this whole idea?

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 ?

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.

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.

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 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.

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 …

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.

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.