Campaign Finance

[NorthSideSox72]

For all the complaining about what candidates and parties are getting what money from who, I'd be curious what everyone thinks is the best way to address this. I have a patented NSS Plan for this, that I will write up in this thread later. But I wanted to get the discussion going.

 

What would you like to see done?

 

[Balta1701]

If I got to start from scratch, ignore that pesky first amendment, and ignore the fact that corporations are people too, here's mine.

 

Fully publicly financed system. Set up in a way such that the Republicans constantly get angry that so many tax dollars are wasted on it. Every bloody expense ought to be covered for major candidates.

 

There would have to be some floor to reach to gain access, whether it's 10% in a certain set of polls or for the same party in the previous election, whatever. That's probably the trickiest part; figuring out a way for a challenger to qualify for funds without having Basil Marceaux.com spending $200 million on presidential ads. I don't want anyone running for Congress or the White House to have to raise money. Ever. The amount spent per year should go up at above the rate of inflation, since it's doing that anyway. No one should lose an election because they're outspent.

 

If a private individual wants to spend their own fortune on ads for a race I wouldn't stop them, but I'd say that you can't contribute more than $10k-ish of your own personal funds to a race while still accepting the federal funds...and if you tried to outspend your opponent, the federal funds going to your opponent should increase.

 

If a private corporation wants to run an issue ad, they shouldn't be able to mention a party or candidate by name at any point after that candidate has launched an officially recognized campaign. Doing so is an outside contribution-in-kind. If the NRA wanted to run ads in October saying "support candidates this fall who oppose registration of handguns" with no names attached and no party attached...I'm sorta ok with that but I worry that I've left a loophole.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, here it is, the NSS Plan^tm. I base this plan on the beliefs that a citizen is a voter, and no one else, and that making sure our politicians aren't winning solely on money is crucial to the future of government.

 

--Individuals can contribute up to a reasonable max per politician and party (can do one, both, all) per year (This limit is currently some few thousand max total per year - I suggest a lower number for candidates but no limit on how many candidates, and a larger limit for parties with no limit on the number of parties. Maybe like $2000 per candidate per year, and up to $4000 per party per year.)

--No other entity can contribute money to a candidate or party, period (coprorations, unions, any of them)

--I agree with Balta's idea that organizations other than candidates or registered parties can spend all they want on ISSUE-SPECIFIC ads, but those ads cannot mention or infer any specific candidate or party

--Politicians can spend basically no money on any campaign marketing in any media. They can spend their own money for travel and living expenses while campaigning, as they wish. And make a very small allowance for some personal spending just to get off the ground (like, pay the fee for declaring as a candidate, setting up a website, the very basic stuff), so make it like $50,000 per individual for any federal office as the max limit.

--All candidates on any ballot or waging any campaign must keep political funds fully segregated from any other monies, with no transferrence allowed at any time, beyond the $50,000 mentioned above.

--Parties can put as much of their money into whatever candidates they want to, without limit.

--Parties can raise no money other than the individual contributions mentioned above, that is used for any political purpose. If they want to fund-raise for operating expenses and such, that's fine. If they want to fund-raise for issue ads, they can too, just like outside organizations can, but within those same rules. But their outflow for anything related to a candidate or election has to be from segregated funds coming from those individual contributions.

--Debates and multi-party forums can be funded by candidates or parties as they wish, outside those limits, as long as it is open to the public and includes any party or candidate reaching a given threshold of signatures for a given jurisdiction (which would need to be determined).

--Corporations and organizations cannot under any circumstances make contributions on behalf of employees, nor can they blackmail employees into any contributions or votes. This includes unions.

--Localities need to meet a set of national standards as to how many voting machines per registered voter per voting area, as a minimum, with no exceptions. Voting machines are required to print two receipts - one for the voter, one for the district to file if needed later. All voters will be allowed to re-cast their votes if they can show that the votes on the receipt don't match what the machine accepted.

--Periodic and random audits of vote receipts versus machine results will be conducted by a federal body, with stiff penalties for any intransigence or error rate beyond a very, very low threshold.

--All voters are required to show identification to prove they are who they say they are, and that they are valid voters. However, the states and/or feds need to allow for access to FREE basic ID's to be issued to anyone below a certain income level (probably poverty + small margin or something), available to ALL citizens, to avoid this becoming a poll tax.

--No federal dollars need to be spent on elections other than administration and enforcement of rules and laws, voting machine integrity, and security, as needed.

 

There's a start.

 

[Balta1701]

My big beef with NSS's concept is that I think it's a bandaid over the real problem.

 

Every time I come back to this issue I give the same response and nothing has changed. If I'm a business or group, let's call me the United Auto Sachs in the Citi, and I do business with the government in any way, through regulation or contracting.

 

If the cost of an election is significantly less than the amount I'd gain by a contract or by a favorable law, then it makes sense for me to spend whatever it takes to win that election.

 

If I'm a bank and I think that disclosure requirements will cost me $10 billion over a 4 year period, and I dump $100 million into making sure that no politicians who support that bill wind up winning, I come out up 99%. If I'm a defense contractor and the government is buying my $1 billion planes, how much would I spend to make it so that politicians stay in office who want to buy 50 more of those? A billion? A couple billion? If I'm a union and I want to unionize Walmart, and I can get a bill passed to make it easy for me to do so, how many billions in additional revenue for the union have I just come up with?

 

As long as you have privately financed campaigns, you have an inherently corrupt system.

[NorthSideSox72]

My big beef with NSS's concept is that I think it's a bandaid over the real problem.

 

Every time I come back to this issue I give the same response and nothing has changed. If I'm a business or group, let's call me the United Auto Sachs in the Citi, and I do business with the government in any way, through regulation or contracting.

 

If the cost of an election is significantly less than the amount I'd gain by a contract or by a favorable law, then it makes sense for me to spend whatever it takes to win that election.

 

If I'm a bank and I think that disclosure requirements will cost me $10 billion over a 4 year period, and I dump $100 million into making sure that no politicians who support that bill wind up winning, I come out up 99%. If I'm a defense contractor and the government is buying my $1 billion planes, how much would I spend to make it so that politicians stay in office who want to buy 50 more of those? A billion? A couple billion? If I'm a union and I want to unionize Walmart, and I can get a bill passed to make it easy for me to do so, how many billions in additional revenue for the union have I just come up with?

 

As long as you have privately financed campaigns, you have an inherently corrupt system.

If you re-read my plan, you will see that's not possible.

 

Now, if you are talking about lobbying, that's a different story, and a different topic.

 

[Balta1701]

If you re-read my plan, you will see that's not possible.

You've left open direct individual contributions to candidates on the order of thousands of dollars per year. Then you just get your 100 highly paid execs in a room with 15 candidates and it's all the same to me. Did I miss something else?

[NorthSideSox72]

You've left open direct individual contributions to candidates on the order of thousands of dollars per year. Then you just get your 100 highly paid execs in a room with 15 candidates and it's all the same to me. Did I miss something else?

And those highly paid execs are welcome to do that, as long as its of their own volition (thus what I added about blackmail).

 

That, to me, is not the same thing as what you are saying.

 

[Balta1701]

And those highly paid execs are welcome to do that, as long as its of their own volition (thus what I added about blackmail).

 

That, to me, is not the same thing as what you are saying.

To me, it is entirely the same thing. One side is getting a monetary advantage because of a policy that they advocate.

[NorthSideSox72]

To me, it is entirely the same thing. One side is getting a monetary advantage because of a policy that they advocate.

Eh? Companies cannot donate. Their people can, to whatever cause they want, up to a certain max. How is that "one side" getting a monetary advantage? One side of what?

 

[Balta1701]

Eh? Companies cannot donate. Their people can, to whatever cause they want, up to a certain max. How is that "one side" getting a monetary advantage? One side of what?

If I'm Bush, for example, and 500 oil execs get into a room with me and pledge to give me $5000 each, I've just funded a large chunk of my campaign. That's a huge electoral advantage that only appears because they expect my policies to be overly friendly to the oil industry, to the point that they'll make that money back.

 

If I'm Obama, and 30000 union workers each give me $199, I've just funded a large chunk of my campaign, and that only happens because they expect my policies to be overly friendly to the unions.

 

Even if you tried to prevent "bundling" in some way, it's going to happen no matter what. Hard money is just as corrupting as outside money.

[NorthSideSox72]

If I'm Bush, for example, and 500 oil execs get into a room with me and pledge to give me $5000 each, I've just funded a large chunk of my campaign. That's a huge electoral advantage that only appears because they expect my policies to be overly friendly to the oil industry, to the point that they'll make that money back.

 

If I'm Obama, and 30000 union workers each give me $199, I've just funded a large chunk of my campaign, and that only happens because they expect my policies to be overly friendly to the unions.

 

Even if you tried to prevent "bundling" in some way, it's going to happen no matter what. Hard money is just as corrupting as outside money.

I fail to see how this aspect is a problem. The key here, is making the law such that any individual can do what they want, up to some relatively low limit. If people want to try to address 30 people at once, or 1000 people at once, they are welcome to do that. It is no different than giving a speech to 1000 people and saying "everyone donate!", and I have zero problem with it, as long as the law protects people's freedom of choice with it. Its only a problem, to me, if the corporation or union in any way pressures or blackmails people into donating, or makes it required, or penalizes them for not doing so. What I am saying, in essence, is that a person's vote AND any political donations they make should be a protected status. No one can penalize them, in employment or otherwise, for it.

 

As long as that protection is in place, then convincing 50 executives in a room to donate is no different that telling 50 people in a public speech to donate, and both are OK with me.

 

[Balta1701]

I fail to see how this aspect is a problem. The key here, is making the law such that any individual can do what they want, up to some relatively low limit. If people want to try to address 30 people at once, or 1000 people at once, they are welcome to do that. It is no different than giving a speech to 1000 people and saying "everyone donate!", and I have zero problem with it, as long as the law protects people's freedom of choice with it. Its only a problem, to me, if the corporation or union in any way pressures or blackmails people into donating, or makes it required, or penalizes them for not doing so. What I am saying, in essence, is that a person's vote AND any political donations they make should be a protected status. No one can penalize them, in employment or otherwise, for it.

 

As long as that protection is in place, then convincing 50 executives in a room to donate is no different that telling 50 people in a public speech to donate, and both are OK with me.

My response to that is pretty simple...that's exactly how it works in the books right now. No one can pressure people to give to a campaign legally. And yet, just about everyone seems to understand correctly that our system is as corrupt as possible.

 

As long as people can give something to a candidate other than their vote, then whoever has more of that currency is worth more to the candidate.

[NorthSideSox72]

My response to that is pretty simple...that's exactly how it works in the books right now. No one can pressure people to give to a campaign legally. And yet, just about everyone seems to understand correctly that our system is as corrupt as possible.

 

As long as people can give something to a candidate other than their vote, then whoever has more of that currency is worth more to the candidate.

For that particular aspect, you are correct that it is somewhat like what goes on now. There are some things I put in my rules that are the same as now, some slightly different, some a lot different.

 

Focusing on this particular thing - bundling, if you will - can best be controlled by the limit on the individual contribution level. If $2000 is too much, make it $500.

 

[Balta1701]

Focusing on this particular thing - bundling, if you will - can best be controlled by the limit on the individual contribution level. If $2000 is too much, make it $500.

Then anyone who has $500 to spare is worth more as a supporter than the average voter.

 

Really, no matter how you slice it, however you change the numbers, nothing you are going to say is going to make me comfortable with the concept of direct private funding of campaigns. I simply will never believe "one man, one vote" isn't better than "one man, one vote, however another man a vote and $x as well". I'll give you the last word if you want it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Then anyone who has $500 to spare is worth more as a supporter than the average voter.

 

Really, no matter how you slice it, however you change the numbers, nothing you are going to say is going to make me comfortable with the concept of direct private funding of campaigns. I simply will never believe "one man, one vote" isn't better than "one man, one vote, however another man a vote and $x as well". I'll give you the last word if you want it.

First, donating does not give you any more leverage as an individual. So I don't agree with your interepretation of this.

 

Second, while I am all about keeping the contribution cap low, I am much more comfortable with people choosing how campaigns are funded, than having the government decide how to distribute the money. You are essentially taking the extreme on this. I get why, you are looking for a way to make the most level playing field possible. And that's a great concept. But its impossible to implement.

 

I don't like the other extreme either, where we are now, where corporations and other entities can spend a gazillion dollars on candidates for office.

 

So, you make it as individual-centered as possible, keep as much power out of the hands of corporations and unions and PAC's as possible, but still allow for freedom of choice and freedom of speech.

 

By the way, one thing that I could see added to the plan here, is a locality restriction. You can prevent people from donating to any politician that does not serve where they have their primary residence (or make a very strict limit, like $50 or something).

 

[Balta1701]

Thought this added something of note to the discussion. Not quite sure what, but wanted to share it.

At the peak of the recent housing boom, subprime mortgage companies were loaning $600 billion per year to homebuyers with poor credit histories. In The Political Economy of the Subprime Mortgage Credit Expansion (NBER Working Paper No.16107), co-authors Atif Mian, Amir Sufi, and Francesco Trebbi explore the links between the rapid growth of the subprime industry and Congressional politics and policy. Focusing on the period between 2002 and 2007, they document a sharp increase in campaign contributions and lobbying activity by the mortgage industry. Using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the researchers find that the industry's campaign contributions increased somewhat between 1998 and 2002. But they began to accelerate rapidly in 2002, and rose by 80 percent between 2002 and 2006. Moreover, the study finds that these contributions were targeted to members of Congress whose districts included a large fraction of subprime borrowers.

 

The researchers study legislators' votes on more than 700 bills that related to housing -- specifically, bills tagged by the Congressional Research Service as related to "affordable housing," "home ownership," and "subprime." They find that over time, campaign contributions became a stronger predictor of representatives' voting. Similarly, the fraction of a legislator's district that consisted of subprime borrowers - as measured by consumer credit scores from Equifax - also became a more powerful explanation of voting patterns over time. The correlation between the concentration of subprime borrowers and voting patterns was greater in 2004, when subprime credit was beginning to flow, than in 1996, when subprime mortgages were still a small share of the overall mortgage market.

 

The authors conclude that "pressure on the U.S. government to expand subprime credit came from both mortgage lenders and subprime borrowers."

Study link

[Texsox]

Do the companies and organizations donate to candidates that already think like them, or do they bypass those cadidiates with common interest and donate to those candidates that oppose them and hope it changes their votes?