I agree with allowing rebuttals in the name of fairness. Whatever reform is enacted needs to be done in such a way that the system we use now is dismantled-so that we are not just passing window dressing aimed at pacifying the public’s perception of corruption.

Also, do you have any notion of how your centrist PAC would work?

The problem with reducing overall funding opportunities for candidates is that we will continue to see certain types of individuals in office: the independently wealthy and the herditary candidates (Bush, Jr; Gore, Jr; movie stars; football players, etc..)

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to stop this cycle?

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire has made a judicial public financing pilot project part of her proposed $30 billion state budget. Called the Judicial Independence Act, it follows the model of Clean Election systems in Arizona, North Carolina and other states wherein candidates collect a set number of small dollar qualifying contributions to receive a set amount of public financing for their campaign.

In part a reaction to the record $2.7 million spent statewide by outside parties on judicial races this past year, Gregoire unveiled the proposal along with a committment to work to cut down on the influence of outside special interetts on judicial elections. In her statement accompany the budget proposal the Governor put her support behind the possibilities of public financing: “For the public’s perception of judicial races, we need to do our dead-level best to make sure that we’ve taken on some reform and that we’ve taken the money out of it the best we can.”

Perhaps the ads that use public funds need to allow for rebuttals of any charges or claims.

The problem here is that the folks who control debt pockets will do what they can to protect their influence. A candidate who defies them probably won’t get elected.

Unless we start small with congressional candidates in close elections. Anyone want to start a National Centrist PAC?

I understand your doubts, but its always easier to think of ways things won’t work, than how to fix them. Um I’m no policy wonk, but you could get public policy experts to work out the wrinkles.

Our policies are being written by the industries they are supposed to regulate. We would spend far less on public funding of campaigns than we do giving corporate tax breaks. There is a way to take the money out of politics, but you have to go into it with the idea that you can make it work.

Kim,

The problem with public funding of campaigns is: Who’s going to be eligible for public funding? Will it be directed only towards Democrats and Republicans (who have the cards stacked in their favor already)? Or will you extend public funding of campaigns to third parties as well? If so, what criteria will be used to determine which third parties are eligible and which ones aren’t? Or maybe all third parties should be eligible–including far-left and far-right political parties?

It seems to me that once you put such a system in place, deciding who does and does not receive public campaign funding will be completely arbitrary (kind of like ballot access laws). Public funding of campaigns would be the ultimate death blow to the Libertarian Party and other fiscally conservative parties that don’t accept public financing in any form on basic principle.

I sympathize with your goal, but the last thing I want to see is another law that has the effect of giving the two major parties an even greater advantage than they already have. Also, there are some Americans who strongly disagree with both the Democrats and Republicans. It doesn’t seem fair for them to have to subsidize parties that they don’t agree with.

Kip makes an excellent point. Many of the laws lobbyists line up to support or oppose are of questionable constitutionality in the first place.

The late Harry Browne had a saying: “The issue isn’t the abuse of power; it’s the power to abuse.” When you give a politician the power to regulate business and our personal lives, you’re just asking for unscrupulous organizations to lobby politicians to pass laws that are in that organizations best interest (and not necessarily ours).

I used to be a HUGE supporter of campaign finance reform under the assumption that it would help independent and third party candidates. Sadly, this assumption has not been borne out by reality. In fact, many third parties are actually HARMED by certain aspects of campaign finance laws since they don’t have a huge political party behind them and are more dependent on individual donors.

It would force elected officials to actually respond to their constituencies, and it would put an end to the revolving door sending members of congress and their aides to lobbying firms after they leave office. A stunning 43% now go to work for them now- earning many times what they earned in government service.

To qualify for the public funding, candidates would have to have a petition with a minimum number of signatures and a minimum number of small donations from the community.

In the 90′s Clinton and Congress reformed welfare for individuals. Stricter regulations forcing more hours of work in exchange for benefits recieved were recently passed. But, there’s no laws governing corporate welfare. I agree with the commenters that pointed out the double standard we have for corporations- they are individuals in some ways, but not others. That fact, alone, is greatly harming our democracy.

Under my system, anyone could contribute any amount at all to the candidate, but the names and the dollar amount would all be public record. It would be illegal to contribute knowingly to a person you were not eligible to vote for, with fines and possible loss of voting rights for repeat offenders. It would be illegal for the candidate to accept money from persons not registered to vote, and not eligible to vote in the election. So no funds from out of state, no funds from big corporate sources or noble cause organizations would be allowed. Just contributions from persons who would be able to vote for the candidate.

This might require candidates to spend more time talking to the votors, and less time with the campaign ads. This would seem like a change that promotes genuine democracy. Candidates exchanging views with voters, and talking to the public directly, instead of through the filter of the media.

We will never see this, of course. Firstly, the media make money selling advertising to candidates, and my proposal would drastically reduce the amount of money available for buying ads. Secondly the special interests would be hurt by such a change. Special interests, which include businesses, labor unions, NGO’s and all kinds of advocacy groups are unlikely to support real campaign finance reform. Yes, they all talk about the problem of too much money corrupting politics, but what they really mean is that there is too much money from groups opposed to their perspective for their comfort. They are all part of the problem.

My opinion and a buck gets you a weak cuppa coffee somewhere.

The robber Barons came after the civil war when the federal government started making huge demands on the economy like building railroads, iron mills, etc.

Do you really think that the federal government could exist it is current size without large corporations with which to do business. Could the interstate highway systems have been built if the only companies that the government could do business with were single proprietorships or limited partnerships?

Paul in Austin,

I do not see how setting up the system proposed by PIRG would level the playing field. It would just change who has the advantage. I believe it would give the most liberal side of the Democratic Party all of the advantages.

Pete, McCaskill’s funding wasn’t that much below Talent’s funding.

More speech is better. Let the courts strike down limits on corp’s, dollars, advocacy. Just match them with other voices. We can do that now. It doesn’t take expensive TV spots to win elections. Populist movements, “people power” is more possible now than it has ever been.

Ok — that’s it. I will crawl back into my hole now.

But wouldn’t the same rule apply? If only public funding can support candidates, all other funding is off limits, even for non-affiliated groups.

Then again, I don’t know. It does smack of censorship and elitism when you look at it that way, much like my ad-ban proposal did earlier this month.

And as I learned from the posters to that suggestion, and have since backed away from my thoughts on ad-ban, the electorate’s a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Take Jim Talent in Missouri … outraised and outspent Claire McCaskill and had business groups going to bat for him right and left; even employed misleading ads.

McCaskill still won, despite all that.

Why — part of it’s anti-Bush sentiments; but I think we also have to give credit where it’s do: The voters of Mo. (at least the majority of them) were smart enough to read through the money and the corporate backing and the deception. They weren’t puppets.

So maybe we do just need to give people more credit, escalate all the dialogue every way we can, and hope/trust the best will result.

Candidates who agree to forego private financing and raise a certain threshhold of very small donations (no more than $5 from each giver) qualify for public funding.

There’s more to it than that, but that’s the basic concept.

And it’s ALREADY the law in states like Maine and Arizon, and most of the candidates in those states are choosing this clean money route. It’s very powerful. No big gifts from anyone — not corporations, not interest groups, no one.

The good news: An average of $15/per US taxpayer/per year would fund every state and federal campaign. Yes — every single one. Now that probably assumes avg. of two candidate ballots, but let’s say someday we’re lucky enough to make it 4 candidates per ballot — that’s $30/taxpayer/year. Still a pretty damn good bargain to eliminate large gifts and level playing field.

This would even be better if we could limit what individual campaigns can spend, but that’s where the Supreme Court slapped us down, in 1976 and this year.

Honestly, unless I’m missing something, Public Campaign, et. al., have already done the centrist solution for us.

Instead of resigning to cynicism, how might to level the playing field in a way consistent with the Constitution?

I think the biggest threat to democracy is the low opinion many seem to have of their fellow citizens.

34 Congressment were re-elected without facing an opponent. None of the suggestions would have changed that. Reading most of the proposals here, there would probably be over 100 Congressmen who would be re-elected without an opponent. So what is the benefit of campaign finance except to give certain interest groups (like labor unions, PIRG) even more power than they have now.