Campaign Finance Reform

So I was listening to NPR this afternoon (actually, RadioWest, which is produced locally, but it comes on the NPR station), and there was this debate about campaign finance reform. First off, let me say this was a very well argued debate. Secondly, I have an idea. Haven't had too much time to think about it, and I won't have much time to think about it today, anyways. But I thought I'd just throw it out there so I don't forget.

First off, I pretty much agree with the idea that corporate money and lobbyist money and whatever else all represent a conflict of interest. That money should not be going directly towards politicians, no matter what the case. It should be spent on advertisement to the people who tell their politicians what to think, so that these people can make decisions. If it goes to the politicians themselves, yes you could look at it and say, well, it's just buying his time so he has a chance to consider their position. But there's too much of a risk that the politician would be swayed by the money, especially if he's concerned about being able to advertise himself to voters and keep his job. And for a lot of the corporations, these contributions represent investments that they expect returns upon (why else would a corporation contribute to a campaign, if they didn't expect returns). So anyways, in an ideal world, politicians should never ever accept contributions from an entity that expects him or her to act in a certain way, which, no matter what people say, is exactly what happens now. (By the way, I've decided that money really is the root of all evil. In that it embodies self-interest, not public interest. The trick, of course, is determining public interest).

But, what about a politician's need to advertise him or herself to voters? If there's no advertising, it's impossible for a voter to understand a politician's goals, viewpoints, etc. And it'd be detrimental to society to make uninformed choices. Let me just go out on a limb and say that political debate is in the interest of the American public, since it is only through political debate that we can reach a consensus on the most appropriate actions to take to better ourselves. In such a case, isn't political debate a "public good"--one that we as a people should be willing to provide for ourselves through some organized system. (Can you see where I'm going here?)

Why not fund political campaigns entirely from taxes, or from a collective pool of contributions? This would ensure that individuals who are interested in the betterment of society don't use their money to dogmatically insist upon a certain viewpoint--rather they use their money to fund debate about the issues. Any individual or entity must recognize that their viewpoint may or may not be the correct course of action. If they really care about something, they should be willing to contribute to a publicly controlled system that researches and debates about whether or not their viewpoint is correct, not to a system that assumes that since they have money, they must be right.

Hmmm. I can already think of counter-attacks on this proposal though. Still a lot of room to manipulate things, especially if we let people contribute as much as they want to this public forum of debate (i.e. politicians might feel a need to please the biggest contributors to the fund, so that they'll keep contributing. But it'd still be less of a problem than contributing to individual politicians). Maybe we should just fund campaigns off taxes. But how does a person gain a voice to begin with? And on top of it, how do we determine who gets to use the money to campaign with? A playoff system of votes?

Well, it's an idea at least. I'll have to think things through more in the future.

Posted September 03, 2003 (05:30 PM) | Comments (1)