Sistersara's Long Thoughtout plan for Public Financing of Elections.

By Sara

Over at Josh Marshall's Coffee House Nathan Newman has results of polling on the matter of public financing of elections.  Very interesting stats actually.  Took some notes and it goes like this -- 74% of all respondants support Public Finance, 80% of all Dem's, 65% of Republicans, and 78% of Independents so support.  Of some interest is why -- and the items polled were "think likely" 82%, "good idea as a matter of leveling the playing field" - 79% and controling the power of special interests -- 77%.  Very interesting.  So what we need is a plan, and for 20 years I have been thinking about one, so here goes. 

Let me begin my plan with Section 8, Article I of the Constitution, which gives to Congress the power to coin money.  "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of Weights and Measures." -- message clear, Congress can create coin of the realm.  I begin here.

Congress needs to create E-$ -- that is Election Dollars.  On January 1 of each even numbered year, each registered voter in the states shall have placed in an electronic account under the supervision of the Secretary of State of the States, a distribution of E$ -- equal by state, and equal by citizen registered voter.  (My thinking is 30 dollars in a Presidential year, 20 if you have a senate race plus a CD, and only 10 in a non presidential year with no senate seat in contest.)  Voters with E$ would be allowed to contribute only to candidates for whom they could actually vote.  The ability of voters to begin to distribute E$ from their accounts would begin as of Midnight, Jan 1 of each even numbered year.  Citizens who register to vote after Jan 1 would be pro-rated. 

E$ would be convertable to US$ either when a candidate exits a race, or at the end of the contest -- Primary or General Election.  All staff, vendors, services involved in an election campaign could only be paid in E$.  Qualified financial institutions would be allowed to advance conversions (so long as they are disclosed) on bond provided in E$.  But E$ would not be currency for any transaction other than campaign related activity.  No other currency could be used for Campaign expenses or costs. 

Now my idea is that every registered voter would have the power to distribute the same amount of money as of Jan 1 of even numbered years -- and anyone who wanted to be a candidate would have to organize to acquire those dollars -- not with big dollar fundraisers, but with on the ground organization.  Door Knockers with Blackberries or lap-tops at New Years parties -- do the sports bars during the bowl games and parades, and all the rest.  I would allow for allocation slips to be submitted at the post office for those voters not electronically connected -- but the point would be any candidate with an interest could deploy organization to raise E$ funds.  Secretaries of State would be required to post daily results on an easily accessable web-site.  Any candidate who drops out would rebate E$ funds to contributors accounts, pro-rated given legitimate expenses. 

I would allow for small contributions of regular US$ to state political parties so long as expenses are for party operations and for the whole ticket, and not any particular candidate.  By Party Operations, I mean all the costs of facilitating a caucus, a primary, a GOTV operation (Phone Banks for the whole ticket), and other local administrative party costs. 

Based on the ratio of E$ each candidate receives, they would be allocated Radio and TV time in local media markets.  But half of the TV and Radio time would have to pay for debates among and between candidates.  Radio and TV would be allowed to do public service candidate access programs, so long as all active candidates are included. 

At the conclusion of the election, (November, even numbered years) all vendors and staff could convert E$ to US $.  All transactions would be transparent. 

My system depends on something required in the Help America Vote Law, and that is interactive but state wide voter registeration rolls.  Perfecting these means this system of individually and equally directed funding could work. 

So what do I want to accomplish? -- first off, end the role of all special interests who cannot actually organize voters in the matter of financing a political campaign.  Much is heard about the poor labor union member who doesn't want his union dues going to support a party or candidate he does not love -- but nothing is said about the financial institutions (Yer bank or credit card firm) that pay the freight of Washington Lobby work for "their" interests no matter or not whether they are in line with depositors or creditors interests.  This totally solves that problem.  The Lobby ceases to be a player. 

If a Union or a Financial Institution want to make the case to voters -- fine, go right ahead.  But the decision is in the hands of the folk able to contribute E$. 

But the most important value of this system is the necessity of politicians and political parties to organize locally -- to remain representative of the people who did, or might elect them, to actually construct the means to ask voters for their E$. 

I think in most uneven years most potential candidates and parties would put much effort into voter registration -- so as to get ready for Jan 1 of the Even Numbered years.  That's all to the good.  Can you imagine a financial incentive to expand the voter base?  What a revolution. 

Now my plan is for the most part, totally electronic -- and thus it is pretty cheap.  But it also has other implications.  Since I would not distribute E$ till Jan 1 of election years, no money primary in the big $$$$ sense of that.  But I would make the primary and caucus national delegate selection window fairly short -- perhaps April 1 to June 15, and I would require these contests be scheduled by time zone, with each four years the first becoming last, and with Alaska and Hawaii being put into the underpopulated Mountain Time zone.  However I would also have a "first of April" small state contest -- New Hampshire, Iowa, maybe Idaho, Deleware and Rhode Island.  The point being if you have under a certain small number of electorial votes, you can choose to go first, and out of your time zone contest.  Thus we would retain the feature of Retail Politics.  (As a Minnesotan, I like the view of Pol's trying to navigate snow drifts in New Hampshire.)  (We have bigger ones.)

Since the days when the Parties forced the League of Women Voters off the stage in the Presidential debates, I have been thinking about how a citizens organization could impose a come-back.  The Stats in the Nathan Newman article on TPM Cafe suggest now is the time. 

 

Comments

[LindyH]

EW: I can't reach the article on The Dark Side.

[orionATL]

god damn sara

this is the most brilliantly innovative column on reforming money and politics that i have read in ages.

i dont know that it is THE answer, but it solves a problem of disparity (in resources) and puts citizens and potential voters in a position either to use the resources they have been given (to be involved) or to acknowledge to themselves that do not wish to contribute to their political system.

[Paer]

The Dark Side.

It's a movie. Luke should have ralized that the dark side is always chosen because of existence.

Dick is'nt smart enought or rich enough to be Darth Vader and, besides, there are others better at it..............

[Adam B]

Heh. Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School introduced this idea as early as 1993. It's still fascinating.

[orionATL]

it's not relevant to this post, except that both deal with change in a poorly functioning political system,

but william grieder has a remarkable article at alternet (6/19)

the first few commenters on the article seem obliviously cynical but grieder makes very sound points related to a political system meeting the needs of the citizens it is supposed to serve, not of the least of these being economic needs.

[jwp]

Sara,

Ingenious. And another example of why you are my favorite blogger.

But I think it is the wrong approach. And, anyway, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny under the idiotic Buckley v. Valeo decision. Especially not with this court.

General principles. First, public financing is needed, but it is not all that is needed. Money corrupts public debate (and so, legislation) because pols will tailor the focus of their remarks and legislative efforts to curry favor with contributors. But there are also many other facots at work.

We need a more transparent Congress and Executive branch. We need different media routines. We need different cultural attitudes toward information and decisions -- probably to be achieved only slowly through school programs.

That brings me to my second point. Election slogan competitions are the wrong focus for progress. Witless pandering will always be the rule then. The only way to make the more egregious type less persuasive (and so less effective) is by shaping public opinion long before the campaign starts.

By the time the campaign starts, it is too late. People stop listening in any real way and start "hearing" only through the filter of tribal allegiances.

Third, the premise of your approach is that people vote (with their contributions) to determine whose message will be the loudest. I think that is flawed. Better to amplify all messages to a more or less equal degree, and let people judge on reason and values.

I prefer a simple system with high public funding level for those who agree not to use other financing. A minimum to give people a voice in the arena. I would not try to control other voices.

Now, of course, it does make sense to prohibit any contribuitons by corporations. Corporatons are not "persons" -- as the idiots in the SCT have held. But unfortunately, we are faced with the need for a constitutional amendment to establish (again) the self-evident fact that corporations are not persons.

We probably also need a constitutional amendment to deal with gerrymandering.

But in the short run, I think our main focus should be to make Congress more transparent, demand that our political parties devote themselves to developing coherent policy options and message,, nurturing an interest in serious debate among young people through contests and prizes, and seeking to reduce partisan tribalism thourgh joint social service activities (both parties sponsoring youth sports, concerts, senior activities, etc.).

Public Financing of elections is essesntial, but we should not put too much faith in it. It is not enough to address the larger problem.

[DemFromCT]

''Ingenious. And another example of why you are my favorite blogger.''

Sara brings the blog essay to new heights. This is not just a hit-and-run appetizer, it's a full course dinner to savor.

[John K]

Sara, what a superb, well thought out proposal.

OT, I've had a vaguely analagous idea about gasoline rationing: each individual would receive a certain number of gasoline credits at the beginning of each year to use to buy gas (they'd still have to pay the pump price) or to sell to rich folks with fleets of gas-guzzlers. There'd be a market in gas ration credits that would benefit those who didn't have to use much gas.

Anyway, back to public financing of elections, your scheme is the most workable in any detail that I've heard. I found my self thinking that ANY public-financing scheme requires action on the part of those wed to the current corrupt system: member of Congress. You've offered a rational solution, now we have to figure out how to persuade them to resist the corporations that currently control Congress. You know they would fight actual public financing tooth and nail.

[Sara]

Yea, the Ackerman piece from 1993 is generally along the lines of my thinking, though my description clearly is post web, post internet electronic transfer thinking. But other than that (and I suspect my idea would be much more cheap and simple to administer) the cultural argument is the same -- it is a voucher for a specific purpose.

Moreover, I think it is totally constitutional. Nothing in this plan would preclude a special interest from making advertising and buying TV time, for instance, to promote policy ideas. The only thing they could not do is link their policy advocacy to specific candidates and parties. If you oppose Abortion fine -- make an advertisement about your opposition. If you are on the pro-choice side -- do the same. Policy advocacy disconnected from elections would not be impacted. I think we would have a much improved policy dialogue if it could be on its own terms, and not interwoven with an election. I think what concerns the court is any restriction on free speech and discourse, and I am not doing that. If a candidate with good E$ wants to take up a cause and spend election money advocating that cause -- no problem. I actually doubt if it would happen very often because most successful candidacies are carefully crafted coalitions of messages, issues, and the persona, identity and values of a candidate matched to the constituency.

I am certain that others can re-work this and improve on it -- and given the level of interest reflected in Nathan Newman's reported polls -- I would suggest now is the time to put something concrete on the table so as to focus debate. It won't solve all the problems of the world but it does get at some. I really believe we have to build a very high wall between Elected Officials and Lobbists. Advocacy is fine but when it comes tied up with political fund raising, contributions to official's PACS, to party PACS, to Jack Abramoff's favorite charity for poor kids access to sports, but actually spends the money on Scottish Golf Games -- it is just time to create new systems that eliminate all the rot. Essentially I am an FDR kind of Democrat -- if something is broken (as was much during the depression) -- try something new. If it doesn't work -- then try something else.

[orionATL]

with respect to sara's comment on her own post

the key info is at the bottom ("If something is broken ...).

that says (to me, at least,) that all the who-ha about a democratic manifesto, a democratic "contract", is so much nonsense.

politics, in my uninformed opinion, is, fundamentally, about perpetually and competently adjusting to a society's needs.

when your tribe cannot find water for the camels, the "leaders" either adjust and find a solution or the camels die. when the camels die, the tribes well-worked out economy is damaged or completely destroyed.

politicians adjusting to the needs of their people is serious stuff. it should not be about forty-something males who have suddenly acquired power expressing their juvenile aggressive fantasies to use the powers of our nation to incite war and destruction.

the american constitution was developed along an essentially economic model in which voters had the right to "buy" or "not buy" their rulers decisions.

i emphasize "had".

from this i infer that the democrats do not need a "master plan", a grand design, or (god forbid) a conning "contract".

democrats need to point out the specific problems we face as a society and the failures of the bush administration to deal with these problems.

then, once in power,

democrats need to gather the "elders" to propose solutions to these problems.

or, stated in contemporary jargon, work with the involved and afflicted parties to come up with a "temporary" solution to what ever problem is at issue.

"temporary"?

yes indeed.

all politics is temporary.

no one knows when the next hurricane, stock market crash, terrorist attack, volcanic eruption, or oil disruption will come from - not to mention drought at the oasis.

give the citizens e$,

and with those dollars and the restrictions suggested above, they can collectively decide who has tackled, or will tackle, the specific problems best.

[jwp]

Sara,

As someone above noted, your plan requires Congress to act, and the dirty little secret about campaign financing is that the incumbents do not want any system that gives challengers a fair chance.

The only way to get a radical change (as you suggest) would be to spin the program as the end all be all cure for all problems. Politically, you would have to do that. Even then, it probably wouldn't work.

A system for Congress modeled on Presidential campaign funding is more familiar, and so more acceptable. A better chance to get that as a starting point.

Also, your 'voucher for speech" program, I suspect, could be manipulated. And used to effectively silence unpopular voices.

In any event, I think a more modest proposal along the Presidential lines might be easier -- not easy -- to achieve.

[Paul Lyon]

``We probably also need a constitutional amendment to deal with gerrymandering.''

Well, if we going that far, we might as well add in proportional representation for the House while we are at it, preferably Single Transferable Vote, but I will take the German two vote system (one for the party, one for the candidate) if STV doth not please. The Congress won't do that, either. We have a system in which the representatives choose their voters (gerrymandering) rather than the other way around, and in which sizeable political minorities get no political representation at all. And they like it that way, and we have almost no way, as was observed above, to force them to change the system.