politicalcivility.com Blog

I posted awhile back on possible campaign finance reform.  Obviously the best campaign reform starts with “we the people,” versus some mandate from back in Washington, which is why I am very happy to see that the McCain-Feingold bill continues to see defeat after defeat in the courts.

Most recently the Supreme Court struck down the Millionaire’s Amendment of McCain-Feingold (Davis v. Federal Election Commission) and highlighted two key analytical issues:

1. Certain disclosure requirements were unconstitutional, namely those requiring that a candidate’s contributions to his campaign be disclosed as they were being made, in addition to being reported on the normal periodic disclosure schedule.
2. The court upheld the argument that a law benefitting one candidate necessarily harmed the other candidate because a campaign is a zero-sum contest.

I hope McCain gets some difficult questions about the impact of his amendment on free speech during the upcoming election cycle.  My hope is that ultimately we stop relying on the government to fix campaign finance.  Their efforts have either hurt free speech or made it that much easier for the incumbent and establishment to win. I believe that as we citizens take the initiative to be informed and we can and will bring about the most meaningful kind of reform: change at the ballot box. 

In response to my post on Obama’s PAC pledge, Misty asked a question about what did I mean about “incentives.”  It’s a fair question and one that is best answered by using a recent constituent letter I received from Senator Hatch’s office after I emailed his office asking him to oppose the farm bill. 

In my view, Hatch’s letter perfectly illustrated both the pork spending problem and the incentives issue that drives decision making and $$ flow in DC.  Hatch gave no principled justification as to why this farm bill was the right thing for government to do.  Every rationale he used in his letter pointed to one overriding theme–bring home the bacon or in the case of this farm bill all the benefits, special programs, business perks. 

So how does this answer the incentives question?  Toward the end of his letter, he also mentioned that this bill was supported by “many agricultural groups in our state.”  PACs (or in this case agricultural special interests groups) know that Sen. Hatch needs votes and that he needs money to run a campaign.  PACs offer both to the elected official.  PACs and special interested groups on the other hand need the people with the power of the purse (or the ability to take from one person and redistribute to another which would be illegal if PACs did it on their own) to do their bidding–they need their Sen. Hatch’s who have compromised to the point that all they have left to offer their constituents is BACON versus principled leadership.

So there you have the recipe for the continuation of the DC incentive love fest: [INCENTIVE for the Politician) votes which equal reelection and continued power and [INCENTIVE for the Special Interest] the growth of government programs or contracts or a general redistribution of wealth directly designed to benefit them. Of course all this is paid for by yours truly: you and me the taxpayer.

This lovefest is what Frederic Bastiat eloquently describes as “legal plunder.”  And as it relates to our government today, we see a Bastiat’s Universal Legal Plunder played out over and over again and unfortunately not just by our own Sen. Hatch.

———————————-

Bastiat on Legal Plunder:

“See if the law (senators or congressmen/women) takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.  See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime…

“The person (agricultural interest in the above example) who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state [or its citizens]…

“Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests.”

It’s almost like listening to the news every day.

I have to give props to Obama for his commitment [see Misty Fowler’s blog] to refusing PAC money.  I hope more elected officials will take his lead, but I have my doubts and here’s why (from a Letter to Editor in WSJ–it just says it better than I could):

“The only reason lobbyists [PACs, special interest groups, etc.] appear as influential as they do is because of the power of the bodies they beseech.  In other words, the power of lobbyists is directly proportional to the ability of the Senate and House of Representatives to give favors to the clients of lobbying firms.  Rein in government [bridges to nowhere, boondoggle research projects in WV, a whole list of welfare programs, etc.] and you rein in lobbyists.  Any attempt to weaken lobbyists without reforming government will do nothing more than violate the Constitution and ensure our politicians become less informed than they already are.”

Until we rein in government, I am afraid Obama’s commitment will be short lived because the incentives just don’t line up.

A side note warning to Obama on his commitment is to not pull a Bush Sr. “Read my lips no new taxes.”  If Obama sticks to his commitment, the political shift that could occur could turn him into an FDR, Reagan type president and would be a tremendous legacy even if that was all he accomplished.

I wrote a letter to the editor @ the desnews on this, which hit this morning.

here’s the link: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695243437,00.html

“You just can’t have a system that is all Republican or all Democrat,” Wayne Crabb said. “There is a reason the government has been set up the way it has with both Democrats and Republicans.”

(http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695242527,00.html)

I’d like to ask Mr. Crabb to show me where in the constitution of our country or of any state that has been set up for two parties.  I can’t seem to find that “check” in the document.  What’s more is that many of the founders actually warned about the problems the country could face if we had a two-party system.  Mr. Crabb’s comments are just one more example of the impact of an education system that is failing to teach and prepare citizens to participate effectively in our society.

While presenting at a conference not to long ago, the question was posed about what can be done with respect to campaign finance or other reform.  Obviously any reform that comes out of Washington should be looked at with a skeptical eye, because those proposing the reform if they did it right would potentially put their jobs in greater jeopardy.  I don’t think, as saintly as these folks are, would be that altruistic.

So what’s the answer, since this blog is about solutions, not just finding problems.

1. Term limits: I have wrestled with this issue for some time and have gone back and forth regarding term limits.  Bottom line is that I am not sure that this is the best alternative, though it may prove necessary.  If this is ultimately the path we must take it is a sad commentary on us as a voting public that we can’t do enough homework and be well enough informed and active to get rid of politicians who are not doing their job.
2. Spending reform: Any spending reform will help the incumbent.  They have two things their opponent does not have a) a bully pulpit and b) 2-6 years of significant press coverage.  To dislodge an incumbent usually requires the challenger to spend 2:1 over the incumbent, thus any spending “limits” or reform will ultimately give incumbents the edge, which makes you question again the McCain-Fiengold legislation as reform or job security legislation.
3. Divine Right Culture Shift: I think this is the only long-term real answer.  The culture shift I am referring to is that an incumbent has the “divine right” of his/her party’s endorsement.  While helping a friend run for US Senate in Ohio, I ran into this very dilemma.  Mike DeWine was the current senator and in the general public was unpopular, but every Republican dinner we went to it was as if he was already the candidate and that there was no need for a primary.  All the skids were greased; all the endorsements were lined up; all the fundraisers were taken care of by the party.  DeWine had to earn nothing even though he’d dumped on his own party multiple times during his tenure.  If parties, both democrats and republicans, can get away from making it easy for an incumbent to get his/her party’s endorsement; when politicians know that each primary election will be a battle, they will stop taking for granted their party and start sticking to principle.

Accountability in politics, what a novel concept.