Clean Money: Arizona enforces violations
The Clean Money Campaign proposal floated in Portland by City Commissioner Erik Sten and City Auditor Gary Blackmer is based in part on a statewide Arizona law that is credited there with opening up the political process.
This week, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted 5-0 to remove State Representative David Burnell Smith from office. Why? Because he overspent the campaign limits he voluntarily agreed to when he accepted over $34,000 in public money to fund his campaign.
From the Arizona Republic newspaper...
The 5-0 vote marks the first time in the United States that a legislator has been ordered to forfeit his office for violating a publicly financed election system. ...Under state law, the penalty for a candidate who overshoots his publicly funded spending limit by more than 10 percent is to be removed from office. Smith is accused of overspending his limit by about 17 percent. During his GOP primary, Lemon said, Smith spent at least $6,000 more than the limit set by state law to disqualify candidates for violations of the voter-approved system. ...
Backers of the Clean Elections Law think this case is especially important, saying that if candidates are allowed to break spending limits and just face a fine, it could shake the foundation of the public campaign-financing system.
"It's important that candidates take the Clean Elections law seriously," said Barb Lubin, executive director of the advocacy group called the Clean Elections Institute. "This is important so people cannot cheat and get elected to office."
Next week, the Portland City Council will take up the Clean Money proposal. Discuss.
|
March 30, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:10 p.m.
Mar 30, '05
Can't wait until our City Council elections are followed by months of bitter litigation, half of which will be financed by taxpayers. What a breakthrough....
Oops. I mean, baaaaaaaaa. It's wonnnnnnderful. So cleeeeeeeean.
Mar 30, '05
Well, good for Arizona. If you've got the law in the first place, you have to actually enforce it. And this law obviously has real teeth if the guy can lose his job over it.
But Jack has a good point about inevitable litigation.
And I wonder whether these "clean money" rules actually result in better elected officials. That is the point, right? More public money invested so that we get a return of better government?
Mar 30, '05
I live in AZ (former Oregon resident) -- haven't noticed any increase in cleanliness per se since the law was passed. We still have a legislature that actually considers it a good idea to pass a law saying guns should be allowed in bars.
1:32 p.m.
Mar 30, '05
Herbert -- Nobody said anything about clean elections resulting in more liberal candidates.
I think it's important to distinguish between process reform for it's own sake - and the desire to generate particular outcomes on other policy matters.
We could, for example, have a law that simply hands a $100,000 bonus to the most left-wing candidate in every race. That might accomplish a particular outcome, but it would obviously be a bad process reform.
Frankly, given that progressives seem to dominate most of the races in Portland, a lot of us are pretty touchy about doing anything to rock the boat -- but it's my position that the Clean Money reform (while far, far from perfect) is a good step in the right direction on process reform.
1:35 p.m.
Mar 30, '05
I also thought it was funny that the most recent Portland Tribune news article on the local proposal led with a direct swipe at their own Phil Stanford's outlandish assertions of what he'd do with money under the proposal.
3:52 p.m.
Mar 30, '05
And to take an action on this issue, visit
Onward Oregon's action page on elections
Mar 30, '05
Can anyone tell me how a financially limited candidate has a chance of fighting against a financially unlimited opposition from the local TV station or newspaper?
Or do you propose messing with the freedom of the press?
How can a financially limited candidate fight against an unlimited independant expendeture against him, or in favor of his opponent?
Or do you propose a second law limiting individuals?
JK
Mar 30, '05
One solution to JK's concern about the media taking sides in campaigns: restore the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast stations.
As far as biased newspapers, I don't think they have much effect on elections.
Many Clean Elections proposals have a mechanism for increasing funding to candidates who are the target of independent expenditures. This might be able to include the news media, though I am not not sure that this would be ruled constitutional.
As for the Arizona case, I think the removal from office of a violator will reduce cheating, and therefore, litigation in the future. Besides, the cost of public support for campaigns and any litigation of it is bound to be much less than the cost of payback for campaign contributors, which hit both taxpayers and consumers.
Mar 30, '05
"the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted 5-0 to remove State Representative David Burnell Smith from office"
How would you like it when Gov. Sizemore appooints his friends to a 5 member commission with the power to toss anyone out of office if the violate limits. Of course, the well connected will be treated differently.
JK
Mar 30, '05
Tom Civiletti: One solution to JK's concern about the media taking sides in campaigns: restore the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast stations.
JK: Be sure to let me know when this happens, in the meantime how do you expect to solve this glaring problem?
Tom Civiletti: As far as biased newspapers, I don't think they have much effect on elections.
JK: You mean like the WW coverage of Goldschmit didn’t have any effect?
Tom Civiletti: Many Clean Elections proposals have a mechanism for increasing funding to candidates who are the target of independent expenditures. This might be able to include the news media, though I am not not sure that this would be ruled constitutional.
JK: So where is it in this proposal? Or is this just another thinly disguised incumbent protection act?
JK
Mar 30, '05
JK:
I'm preparing to file the ordinance for consideration next week. It's posted here: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=75470
See sections 2.10.140 and 2.10.150 for Independent Expenditure provisions.
Really, everybody, please take a look. Constructive criticism gladly accepted. Jibes accepted too, just less gladly.
Mar 30, '05
One small point from further in the article in the Arizona Republic:
<hr/>Removal from office is the most severe penalty under the Clean Elections law. Legal experts said the constitutionality of that provision has never been argued in an Arizona court of law and that it needs to be settled by the courts.
<hr/>I am hard pressed to see how restricting someone from spending his money in a campaign is not an abridgment of free speech.
What exactly is the authority this commission overseeing this clean money will have?
Can someone tell me again, what problem we are fixing with "Clean Money"? Am I too assume all current office holders are there because of dirty money? Details?
10:27 p.m.
Mar 30, '05
I'm slowly being won over (or should I say being buried in the avalanche of information from Marshall. All in the spirit of good discussion!)
Unlike Kari, I still fear this is process reform simply for the purpose of reform, something tht Portlanders are far too fond of (in my opinion). The problems that have been identified by the proponents (declining levels of public trust and participation; dominance of the system by monied candidates; too few candidates for office) just aren't in evidence in Portland.
And as a political scientist, I get rattled at cavalier use of statistics, such as the oft-cited stat that 99 times out of 114, the better funded candidate won. The implication is that money bought victory, but we know there is a clear causal arrow in the other direction. The better candidate attracts more funds; campaign donors like to back winners.
However, I have to stop myself from picking at the scab of my fascination with institutional rules, processes, and predicting behavior.
The reality is that the dramatic increase in campaign spending throughout American politics has had deleterious consequences. I don't think it has in Portland--not yet--but in general, I am an advocate of public financing. If Portland can spearhead such a movement, I'd not be opposed.
It's just too bad that this had to come on the agenda at a time when so many other budget needs would seem to have a higher priority.
10:30 p.m.
Mar 30, '05
Steve: I am hard pressed to see how restricting someone from spending his money in a campaign is not an abridgment of free speech.
The problem is likely that the candidate in question took public funds on the assurance that he would honor spending limits. You are not obligated to participate in the public funding system, and can spend your own money (or raise money).
However, should you choose to opt in, you are constrained to follow the rules of the game.
12:37 a.m.
Mar 31, '05
Steve: I am hard pressed to see how restricting someone from spending his money in a campaign is not an abridgment of free speech.
This constitutional question is settled. After all, it's how we've run presidential elections for a couple of decades.
You agree voluntarily to spending limits. The government hands you a check. That's that.
In 2004, both Bush and Kerry opted out of the system. Thus, no limits.
(Of course, the several decades old system only limited hard money. The 1990s saw an explosion in soft money as the FEC relaxed the rules on spending it and the parties got better about exploiting loopholes...)
In any case, the key is voluntarily.
Mar 31, '05
Arizona is indeed a big test case of Clean Money, Fair Elections.
The Clean Candidate drastically overspends their agreed upon limit knowingly, wins the primary and then goes on to win the election!
Did that extra 17% cash give him the win? We'll never know. What we do know is in this simple perspectcive, it's called cheating. Plain and simple.
It's definitely refreshing and empowering to actually nail cheaters once in a while. Break the rules, pay the price. What a great example to set for our our kids, businesses, labor leaders, football coaches...
Questions: Could he have opted out down the road? Why did he stay "clean" knowing the risk? Does the law need to be revised to allow for this (if he repays all public funds)?
Nonetheless, it appears that under the current law, Smith was in violation and is subject to the punishment (precisely fitting the crime). Thus he should be urged to accept his fate and restore integrity to the office. He should do his service to the public.
We'll see if Arizonans stand up to see Smith dealt with appropriately and to uphold the doctrine of fairness over the dogma that money is righteousness.
Sincerely,
James Bennett Saxon
Mar 31, '05
Kari, didn't Bush and Kerry both opt in to the system for the general election, but not before?
In other words, no limits before their respective conventions, but after they each had received the formal nomination of their party, they took the cash and were subject to the spending limit.
Thus the fuss that was made about how Kerry's convention was 5 weeks earlier than Bush's, so he had to make the same amount of limited funds last 5 weeks longer... which was a serious issue for him.
You're right about the basic constitutionality since it's an opt-in system. But do you suppose a case could be made that the different time frames constituted discrimination against the candidate with the longer duration spending limit?
2:14 a.m.
Mar 31, '05
David, yes, you're right. They opted in after the conventions.
James, it would seem to me that they shouldn't be able to opt back out once they've accepted public funds. That would just serve to allow people to game the system - opt in, get the money, spend fast and early, do a poll, prove you're the frontrunner, opt out, raise the money that goes to frontrunners, and keep on raising money over the limits.
Mar 31, '05
James Saxon asks, "Could he have opted out down the road? Why did he stay "clean" knowing the risk? Does the law need to be revised to allow for this (if he repays all public funds)?"
I don't know Arizona's answer. See proposed code section 2.10.210 to understand how it would be dealt with in Portland. Essentially, the answer is yes and the all the public funds would have to be repayed, plus interest.
Mar 31, '05
Marshall,
Want to talk about the CoP ordinance on PCM TV Saturday eveining? I have a 20 minute spot on the new "PDX Experience" for the subject.
Mar 31, '05
for more information on clean money reforms and why they are needed, check here:
Voter Owned Elections
Public Campaign
Mar 31, '05
Sure Tom, thanks.
The Illinois Louisville game should be settled by the early evening.
Give me a shout off line to make arrangements. Let me know if you need my contact info.
Mar 31, '05
And as a political scientist, I get rattled at cavalier use of statistics, such as the oft-cited stat that 99 times out of 114, the better funded candidate won. The implication is that money bought victory, but we know there is a clear causal arrow in the other direction. The better candidate attracts more funds; campaign donors like to back winners.
You don't have to have a PhD in Political Science to find that comment near laughable. The question is, "who is the candidate better for?" If a candidate receives 80% of his campaign funding from corporate interests and 20% from private citizens, who is the candidate more likely to be beholden to?
Why should we in Oregon engage in Campaign finance reform? Take a look at two cases this week, Moyer getting a pass on his fraudulent contributions, and the SoS blocking IRV proposals. It should be fairly obvious that both the Dems and the Repubs are quite happy with the status quo and that is evidence enough for me to introduce reform to the system.
-Fond of Reform in Portland
Mar 31, '05
I probably shouldn't, but guess I'll throw a grenade in this discussion.
---We should have more money in politics, not less.---
Any takers?
Mar 31, '05
I am hard pressed to see how restricting someone from spending his money in a campaign is not an abridgment of free speech.
So, for example, Dan Doyle paying his wife exhorbitant sums to run his campaign or skimming money for personal use is protected speech?
Can someone tell me again, what problem we are fixing with "Clean Money"? Am I too assume all current office holders are there because of dirty money? Details?
Money spent on electioneering campaigns often has less to do with speech than it does with an attempt to influence public policy.
As one example, in 1994, with no limits in place, the tobacco industry spent $151,000 on legislative campaigns in Oregon. In 1996, with limits in place, they spent $0. If this were a case when money = speech, they could have done an independent expenditure campaign or donated money under the system that we had in place at that time. They chose not to and the rationale begs the rhetorical question: Were they engaged in free speech by opening their very large checkbooks, or were they engaged in an attempt to purchase favor?
Similarly, in 2003, during Oregon's fiscal crisis, 10 companies spent $2.5 million campaigning for, and lobbying, Oregon's 90 legislators and received an $87.6 million tax cut over 10 years. Again, the motive likely had less to do with speech than with influence.
Mar 31, '05
So, for example, Dan Doyle paying his wife exhorbitant sums to run his campaign or skimming money for personal use is protected speech?
Spending money to speak would have been protected speech. Spending it in a corrupt way will get you properly investigated for corruption and make you a former member of the legislature. The system works. How he spent it had nothing to do with the good or evil of why some one gave it to him.
Money spent on electioneering campaigns often has less to do with speech than it does with an attempt to influence public policy.
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. We spend billions every year in this country trying to persuade people to buy a prticular brand of soap or shoes. Should we not spend more to talk about the important issues of the day or the people who will decide on said issues? Should we not raise the profile of public debate?
You seem to imply that when people give money, there is always a quid pro quo. Not so. And if that is ever the case, then the public official who behaved in a corrupt manor should be prosecuted for the corruption. There is no inherent evil in giving money to support a candidate or a campaign.
Mar 31, '05
And just another question to your example: The tobacco industry bought protection from exactly what with their political donations? My read is that if they expected protection, it was a fairly unsuccessful investment.
Mar 31, '05
Remember, folks, the system being proposed in Portland is primarily about opening up access to those who want to run for office so that voters will have more choices and see different voices in the election. People with good ideas and community support shouldn't also have to have wealthy friends in order to run a viable campaign. Candidates should spend campaign time talking with voters, not dailing for dollars. Voters should have a real opportunity to hear from candidates whose chief barrier to running a viable campaign is their lack of access to wealth. Voter Owned Elections will create these opportunities.
6:34 p.m.
Mar 31, '05
You seem to imply that when people give money, there is always a quid pro quo.
No, I am saying that it is often the case that a quid pro quo relationship is involved when people make very large contributions to political campaigns, and that in such cases donations have more to do with purchasing influence than they do with free speech.
In making that argument, I pointed out a few cases where I believe we can demonstrate a quid pro relationship, or the expectation of a quid pro quo relationship.
There are many such examples in both Oregon and national politics. I will reference one of them:
In 2002-2003, big pharmaceutical companies spent $750,000 in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures on a handful of targetted Oregon lawmakers who watered down or blocked legislation that was designed to save consumers money.
Is that about free speech, or about purchasing legislative outcomes?
If a given lobby, such as the one mentioned above, writes several large checks to a committee chair who blocks bills that the lobby doesn't like from being heard in committee, effectively preventing it from ever being heard on the floor and voted on, in what sense is that "raising the profile of public debate"?
Or does that sort of thing never happen in Salem or DC?
There is no inherent evil in giving money to support a candidate or a campaign.
There's a strawman if I've ever heard one. No one is saying that spending money is inherently evil. What I am suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, the federal government and the 44 other states in this country that have limits on campaign contributions, and the 68 percent of Oregonians who voted for campaign limits in 1994 are onto something when they pass laws limiting the amount of money that people can spend on electioneering campaigns.
7:18 p.m.
Mar 31, '05
And just another question to your example: The tobacco industry bought protection from exactly what with their political donations? My read is that if they expected protection, it was a fairly unsuccessful investment.
Simply put, your "read" is wrong. Although Oregon was one of 40 states to opt-into the lawsuit against big tobacco, the tobacco lobby successfully blocked efforts in the legislature to raise the tax on tobacco products in both 1993 and 1995 in the non-spending limit environment. Again, they spent zero in 1996, a fact that was rendered moot because that was the year that the citizens of Oregon bypassed the legislature, and voted overwhelmingly to support a tobacco tax petition in the public initiative process that was sponsored by PeaceHealth, the OMA, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
8:53 p.m.
Mar 31, '05
The politicians, elected with assistance from $1.2 million in contributions from the Oregon Restaurant Association (ORA) in the past three election cycles, appoint members of the Oregon Lottery Commission, who determine the commissions on video poker and other "games." Experience in Canada and elsewhere indicate that a 15% commission on such games is just fine, but the Oregon outlets--members of the ORA--get an average commission of nearly 30%. This means a siphoning of $85 million per year that should be going to schools or to reduce the overall tax burden. I attribute this directly to the influence of political campaign contributions.
8:57 p.m.
Mar 31, '05
Also, there is discussion above about corruption. That is not the major problem. Oregon's system of no limits on campaign contributions (one of only 5 states with no limits) allows money to perform the function of selection -- choosing which persons to support as candidates in the first place. The big corporate and other money chooses people who will serve their interests, with no need for direct bribes or "corruption."
Apr 1, '05
Posted by: Marshall Runkel | March 30, 2005 07:12 PM I'm preparing to file the ordinance for consideration next week. It's posted here:
See sections 2.10.140 and 2.10.150 for Independent Expenditure provisions.
Really, everybody, please take a look. Constructive criticism gladly accepted. Jibes accepted too, just less gladly.
JK: Here is my constructive criticism:
That is a 36 pages document. Talk about things to NOT read. However here is one little problem. You section:
2.10.140 Independent Expenditure Disclosure Requirements. A. A Person or Political Committee making an Independent Expenditure in an amount of $1,000 or more, or Independent Expenditures in an aggregate amount of $1,000 or more, supporting or opposing a Candidate or Candidates for nomination or election to City Office shall file notice with the Auditor as provided in this Section.
I thought the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that you cannot force someone to identify themselves when putting out leaflets and by implication (or maybe explicidly) any political material. I think it comes from recognizing the value of anonymous literature used by out founding fathers against England
JK
Apr 1, '05
Posted by: Marshall Runkel | March 30, 2005 07:12 PM I'm preparing to file the ordinance for consideration next week. It's posted here:
See sections 2.10.140 and 2.10.150 for Independent Expenditure provisions.
Really, everybody, please take a look. Constructive criticism gladly accepted. Jibes accepted too, just less gladly.
JK: Here is my constructive criticism:
That is a 36 pages document. Talk about things to NOT read. However here is one little problem. You section:
2.10.140 Independent Expenditure Disclosure Requirements. A. A Person or Political Committee making an Independent Expenditure in an amount of $1,000 or more, or Independent Expenditures in an aggregate amount of $1,000 or more, supporting or opposing a Candidate or Candidates for nomination or election to City Office shall file notice with the Auditor as provided in this Section.
I thought the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that you cannot force someone to identify themselves when putting out leaflets and by implication (or maybe explicidly) any political material. I think it comes from recognizing the value of anonymous literature used by out founding fathers against England
JK
Apr 1, '05
Working from memory and not citation, I believe that was a federal district court ruling and I think it does not prohibit required spending reports, but allows the material itself to not identify the source.
Apr 1, '05
I could run for auditor, get 5 bucks from each of 1000 people, refuse to accept donations greater than 100 dollars, refuse donations for which people claim a tax deduction, and pledge (express intent, not promise) not to spend more than the amount prescribed in the clean money plan. I could do all those things demanded of the recipients of the dirty money, but with the exception of one thing, refuse to sign a contract waiving my right to the protections of the US Supreme Court and Oregon Supreme Court on free speech.
When I then file suit for the city's refusal to deliver my campaign cash to me to speak against dirty money I will add a demand that no public money be paid to inside counsel or outside counsel to oppose prompt delivery of the money as it would act as a prior restraint to my speech. That is, deliver the money today and we can litigate the matter in on parallel track.
I would pledge, to the voters, to refuse to approve any expenditure of funds on this dirty money campaign and any other campaign of conducting political polls to assess the potential likelihood of passage of any measure and the delivery of money to any so-called neutral economic analysis firm, and the like, for the purpose of giving the illusion of apolitical advice on public policy matters of any kind. As the elected auditor I could tell the unelected City Attorney to go jump in a lake if they said I must comply, as it is the law, with the requirement that the city deliver money to all persons that meet the terms of the dirty money ordinance, or the like.
I could take the equivalent position to that of Benton county on the marriage issue; everybody can get the money (here without the extraction of a waiver of free speech rights) or nobody can.
What will the DA do, prosecute me for misuse of public office? What would I say to folks, including city counselor's, that subsequently demand their public money for engaging in speech . . . “sue me if you disagree.”
My list of targets of unlawful public expenditures is rather long; just in the realm of First Amendment rights alone. What would be my theme . . End Dirty Money Campaigning By Ending Lobbying By The City.
End DIRTY MONEY.
It's a joke isn't it . . . an April Fools joke . . . the Silly Money campaign?
Apr 1, '05
ron,
The courts have disagreed with you on voluntary public campagn financing.
I consider myself a strong supporter of free speech and support Clean Money systems. Even the ACLU, which fights against campaign finance reform with vigor, supports the idea.
I don't think your scenario is persuasive.
Apr 1, '05
Tom, you need to expand your case law search beyond facts specific to "public campaign financing" to encompass other broader concepts pertaining to free speech more generally. Only then can you find the legal infirmities . . . infirmities that may or may not have been properly asserted, or for which the proper fact situation has not yet arisen to test their validity.
Did you follow the link?
From the position of Auditor, what mechanism could you possibly find to thwart my refusal to support any further spending on theoretically-clean money type stuff? If the city budget required my approval we would have a stalemate, wouldn't we, on the entire budget? To break the stalemate it would take a court order that effectively strips me of my authority or the voters would have to either recall me or alter the powers of the auditor position to strip the office of any real power. This is a tactical thing, as well as legal. It illustrates the absurd arbitrariness of the current support, rather than opposition, of fleeting political folks in office today; which helps to differentiate law from simple politics. If voters put me into a position of creating the stalemate it would ultimately be in the voters hands to break the stalemate.
My own opposition to the scheme, at the outset, would not provide a proper test case, for the grant of the special privileges. Rather the proper test would be when I refused from the elective position of Auditor, however that position was obtained, to apply the law so as to grant anyone the special privilege . . . as it would diminish the free speech rights of those not accorded the special privilege. This would apply equally whether it is the city council or a charter amendment that authorizes the so-called clean money plan. If you can draw a parallel to the grant or denial of marriage licenses, procedurally, you get extra credit. (Linn made a fatal tactical error, legally, by granting the marriage licenses rather than denying them.) If you think I am wrong then go ask Charles Hinkle, for he might be able to wield a mere up or down jab at the validity of my arguments, without discussing the finer details. I am sure the procedural stuff is rather fresh in his mind.
Apr 2, '05
ron,
Although I am sure there are other possible challenges, the Main and Arizona public financing systems have been operating for several years and have withstood scrutiny.
Whether an auditor would be elected who who acted as you suggest is hypothetical, and, I think, not likely. I would institute the system and take my chances on the fallout of such an occurance.
As others have said, because public financing is voluntary, it escapes most free speech problems. Campaign contribution limitations can theoretically be considered free speech curtailment, but the federal courts have upheld their legality. I believe public financing will survive as well.
Charlie Hinkle is a great guy who I have worked with in the past. We do not agree on all matters involving the First Ammendment, though. Ultimately, of course, the courts will decide, even if Paul DeLay doesn't like it.
By the way, I will be discussing the Portland ordinance with Marshall Runkel on PDX EXPERIENCE tonight [7-9, segment scheduled for 8:05] on metro area cable channel eleven.
10:35 p.m.
Apr 2, '05
Salvador:
This proves nothing: In 2002-2003, big pharmaceutical companies spent $750,000 in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures on a handful of targetted Oregon lawmakers who watered down or blocked legislation that was designed to save consumers money. Unless you can show that these lawmakers would not have otherwise watered down or blocked the legislation without the donations.
In fact, your proof is harder than that. You'd have to show that the money bought the vote, not the informational material provided by the lobbying group. I know you are going to call this influence peddling, but public policy is not an exact science. Legislators are in dire need of high quality research on various public policy proposals, and yes, affected interests provide much of that research.
The congressional literature has attempted again and again (I can give you dozens of citations if you wish) to find a direct link between campaign donations and votes, without success.
People tend to either a) give money to both sides in order to get their position heard or b) give money to people who already agree with them.
10:42 p.m.
Apr 2, '05
FoRIP: you say laughable, I suppose, because you don't want to address the point on its merits.
This made you laugh: And as a political scientist, I get rattled at cavalier use of statistics, such as the oft-cited stat that 99 times out of 114, the better funded candidate won. The implication is that money bought victory, but we know there is a clear causal arrow in the other direction. The better candidate attracts more funds; campaign donors like to back winners.
And you wrote: You don't have to have a PhD in Political Science to find that comment near laughable. The question is, "who is the candidate better for?" If a candidate receives 80% of his campaign funding from corporate interests and 20% from private citizens, who is the candidate more likely to be beholden to?
You're saying two separate things here.
The winner is generally the better candidate because they wield the levers of power. That's why corporations for decades gave campaign donations to the winner regardless of partisan affiliation (this usually meant incumbents but there are lots of examples of bipartisan giving).
The second part of your statement implicitly claims that "corporate interests" give a lot of money to campaigns (you say 80% but this exceeds even what PACs [not all of which are coporate] give in congressional races) and that candidates are somehow beholden.
What evidence do you have beyond waving the anti-corporate bloody flag? Does Nike or Columbia Sportswear give to candidates who may pursue policies that are preferential to their growth and vitality? I bet they do. Is that automatically counter to the "public interest" (however the heck you define that)?
When you say things like "beholden" I need to know what you mean.
Apr 3, '05
Tom,
Perhaps I have been too radical. I have held a belief that any group of folks that gain the control of the government, and the tools of government power, are supposed to be lookup upon with an even greater level of scrutiny rather than less. It kind of fits my position that the latest election is not supposed to be the last. The creeping clamps on free speech are not enhancements but the devil to free speech. Am I supposed to begin to believe, religiously, that certain people will be benevolent and that I must also believe that all people will be benevolent, as a necessary conclusion? This is absurd.
Ponder the extremes as well as creeping assaults on free speech, as a core thing to democracy, Robert Mugabee Proposes Clean Money Public Funding To Finance Campaigns.
My recognition of the nature of mankind does not allow me the pleasure of the bliss that accompanies ignorance.
12:23 p.m.
Apr 4, '05
This proves nothing: In 2002-2003, big pharmaceutical companies spent $750,000 in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures on a handful of targetted Oregon lawmakers who watered down or blocked legislation that was designed to save consumers money.
Actually, I don't really have to "prove" anything. I'm putting some facts out there in the world that support a general thesis which is that money buys influence in legislatures, often to the detriment of public policy.
<h2>The case you are attempting to make is that money does not buy influence in legislatures. It's a naive position to take, and given that the argument that you've fallen back on is: "You can't prove a negative, therefore you are wrong", and is really another way of saying that "You can't prove that unicorns don't exist, therefore unicorns exist". Trivially true? Perhaps. It's also silly and a flawed when used as the basis of an argument that you'd like to have taken seriously.</h2>