Campaign Finance Reform

“Once members of Congress and the President are responsible only to the electorate, they will begin looking out for the public’s interests- not corporate interests.” – Robert N. Cheek, 2011

            I want to point out, in no uncertain terms, that I first address Campaign Finance Reform first for a reason. Without true campaign finance reform, nothing will ever change. As long as those with the money have the power, we will continue to get the government that they want, not the government that we need. The first step in any American political reformation will be the rise of Campaign Finance Reform which limits hard AND soft money contributions, limits political involvement to real persons, not juridical persons (‘people’ who can be sued like corporations), and allows politicians to run for office without spending time fundraising.

            So what is the problem? Throughout the 20^th century, with the rise of instant communication (nation-wide newspapers, telegraph, radio, and television) political campaigns became very expensive. Especially in the 21^st century, even state races and Congressional races have become prohibitively expensive. Special Interests groups and Corporations saw an opportunity to buy favor with those in power. They began offering to fill the campaign war-chests, sometimes of both candidates, just to assure they have an ear when the election is over. In the end, that’s what happens. Campaign donations give the donator ‘access’ once they get elected. It has created a symbiotic relationship between the donators and the elected. Further, the elected leaders that the Founders envisioned was one of the citizen-leader. By getting businessmen, farmers, and workers of all types in government, we could be sure to retain the government by the people and for the people. However, today, the prohibitive expense of a campaign eliminates many with good ideas who would otherwise run from running for public office.

            Obviously, this is a problem. If the donators have access to the officials, and the elected are doing their bidding, where does that leave the electorate? People need government to work for them, and they no longer have access. Rather than voting for the benefit of the people, they vote for the benefit of their special interest group and corporate sponsors. Let’s test this idea. Call your Congressman or Senator, or for that matter your state representatives. Even better, I want you to call the white house. Ask for an appointment. Not to meet with an advisor or someone who works in the office, but for the elected official. What’s the likelihood you will get that appointment? Zero- not a chance. BUT, what if you gave 1 million dollars to the campaign? What’s the likelihood then? Probably much better, especially if you mention that you spoke with the official’s last opponent or likely next appointment. Lobbyists from these donators, in fact, walk the halls of Congress, in areas where the public is not allowed. They take Congressmen to dinner at $500 a plate restaurants where its impossible to get a table. They take them on golf outings to St. Andrews. And when the election ramps up, they make the promised donations. This is not a government by the people or for the people, it’s a government FOR SALE.

            So, what is the solution? We need a system where people are elected through public funds as opposed to private donations. This makes the elected officials responsible only to those who vote for them and not to those who donate the most to their campaigns. BUT I realize that is an impossibility in this era. What we need to focus on is what we can do in the mean time.

            How do we do this? It will not be easy. Such a movement will go against the grain of the entire system as it stands. First, what we can do is reform the campaign finance system that we have. The first step is to eliminate soft money donations to the parties and candidates. This will be the first step to getting the big money out of government. The public funding option, given to Presidents can be expanded to the Senate and eventually even the House. At the same time, we start on the state level, at least offering public funding options. I advocate the option, only because the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has held that states can not eliminate private financing of campaigns. Maryland already has a public funding option for the gubernatorial election. It would be easy to expand this system for all state races in Maryland. Once this is accomplished, or maybe just as an alternative campaign, the issue is taken to the Federal level- first, offering the Congressional candidates the option and proving that it is a viable option. If candidates chose to remain in the private funding campaigns, they will be running against candidates who can make the claim ‘I owe my election to no one but you, the voters.’ Once a majority of the elected, or even all of the elected, owes their success to publicly funded campaigns, perhaps the country would be ready for a mandatory public funding system.

            Many will claim that this system cannot work. However, the system is already working in several states. I have written a paper, showing these success stories. Please take the time to read over the evidence here.

            What results will this have? This will work for the people because it will give them a true voice in the governing of the nation and their futures. Also, this will benefit the government. Imagine the pork and spending that could be saved when the elected have no reason to benefit. I have very little evidence to back this up, but some Congressional Accounting Office statistics suggest that by removing these special favors (like the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’) the public financing would pay for itself by removing these special spending projects. A side effect of this policy will be the elimination of lobbyists. I think that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, some groups need to be represented by a lobbyist, and no, the elimination will not be total. However, it will be an opportunity to greatly limit the number and effect of lobbying groups on the government. I recognized that lobbyists are not the problem, and in many ways they are a solution. However, its an industry that needs to be regulated, and this will give us an opportunity to do it.

Please comment and share your thoughts- I’d love to hear some reactions. Be sure to like/share on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to get the latest updates.

© Robert Cheek, 2011