Yesterday evening my wife asked my opinion of the several referenda we’ll be voting on in the election next Tuesday. I did so and thought I might do so here as well. Here’s one of them:
“Shall the U. S. Congress pass a bill, to be duly ratified by three-fourths of the states, adopting an amendment to the U. S. Constitution empowering the federal government and states to regulate and limit political contributions from corporations?”
As stated I would oppose such an amendment but a great deal depends on the specific wording of the proposed amendment. If it were structured so as to empower the federal government and the states to regulate and limit political contributions from all group entities not limited to corporations but including partnerships, labor unions, not-for-profit organizations not organized as corporations, and all other similar organizations other than individual living, breathing, human beings, I would favor it.
Note that if you look at a list of the hundred largest contributors to political campaigns and politics, generally, labor unions and not-for-profit organizations are among the very largest contributors. Considering the symbiotic relationship between those organizations and government at various different levels, I find that troubling. I do not generally believe that tax dollars should be recycled into political contributions unless it is done on an even-handed basis without regard to affiliation. Otherwise it is a license to steal.
I have a non-binding referendum on whether to require future city employees to live in the City. That used to be required until about ten years ago and now something like 20-30 percent of employees live outside the city. Median salary is $70k and supporters think forcing such earners making about twice the median salary in the city would help the economy and help with the pension problems.
I’m ambivalent about it, but predict that the newspaper’s editorial will make such a weak, handwaving argument against the referendum that I will end up supporting it in spite.
“Otherwise it is a license to steal.”
At a minimum. Hell, they might as well include their bank wire instructions.
1) Labor makes up some of the largest individual donors. As a percent of total donations they are dwarfed by finance, business and lawyers.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php
2) To what you said I would add that there should be no secret political donations. That is not free speech.
Steve
I’m very skeptical of any amendment to prevent corporations or other organizations from making “political contributions.” As a practical matter, it seems to me that any regulations would be relatively easy to game.
And, what is a “political contribution?” How will that be legally defined? Can corporations run their own political advertisements? How does one define “political advertisement?” This was an issue in the Citizen’s United case. If the Lifetime network does a “biography” of the President or a candidate, is that a political advertisement or contribution?
It seems to me the proposals I’ve seen that aspire to keep “corporate” money out of politics aren’t very well thought out and few of the proponents have gone to the effort to game the “what ifs” to see if the proposed regulation will actually achieve the desired end. My skepticism of the ability to actually accomplish this goal leads me in a different direction – I think we should end the limits on individual contributions, continue to allow “corporate” contributions, but enact transparency and reporting regulations so the funding streams aren’t hidden.
My mythic constitution covers political donations. First, only individual citizens are allowed to donate to candidates. Second, candidates can ONLY accept money from people that can vote for them. So I could not as a Floridian donate to someone running for office in California, for example. Third, donations can be made for any amount. Fourth, all donations must be listed publicly within a day of being made to a candidate.
So if one wants to buy a pol, that’s okay just so long as you can (a) vote for them and (b) everyone knows who the buyers and sellers are.
Imagine if Perot could have used his pockets to fund someone more politically astute than himself to get his message across. Or imagine being able to tell when some joker has been bought and paid for.
I’m not pretending that this would solve all problems (for example nothing about this would stop PACs from doing what they’re doing now, for example), but it would be a start. I particularly like the idea of limiting donations to those you can vote for, although that has real problems as well.
The only way to limit the impact of money in politics is to limit the power of government. It is the same dynamic as healthcare and college tuition. Providing anything with minimal limits will increase the demand, and the amount of money needed to sustain the system will increase. The increased money will increase the demand, and the increased demand will require more money. Rinse and repeat.
When the dog catcher’s power increases, the money spent in the dog catcher election will increase.
One other minor bit about my mythical constitution: No one would be allowed to win the Presidency unless they carried their declared home state. (Yes, I plan on keeping not just the states but that hoary old tradition of the electoral college. Imagine the Florida recount done across the whole nation for why I don’t want to give it up.)
The only election winner this would have impacted in the past would have been Woodrow Wilson, who would have thus lost his 1916 re-election bid. And no, I have not at all thought about the consequences of such a loss, who gets to be President. But it would have made campaigns such as Al Gore’s a complete non-starter, and there’s something to be said for that!
Incidentally, looking at some old election maps it seems clear that Woodrow Wilson would have at best won a squeaker in 1912 if not for the Republican civil war between Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. So he would have likely picked up electoral votes in 1916 in that scenario. (I’m not willing at this time to look at the state-by-state data to back that up!)
That would leave Madison’s 1812 election as the only one without a clear gain for the re-elected President. That one cannot be slouched off due to territorial expansion, either. Only one state was added from 1808 to 1812. Madison’s losses came from losing NY and NJ and a couple of extra votes in MD, though he made up a little ground by getting all of NC’s electoral votes (he’d only gotten 11/14 in 1808) and picking up LA’s three new electoral votes. (I’m ignoring changes from the 1810 census.) But the war right before the election still counts as exceptional circumstances!
So Obama getting re-elected would be EXTREMELY counter to the nation’s history. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but it would be extremely peculiar. If people can’t make up their mind on whether or not to keep the current guy at this point in time, they’re going to vote against him once in the booth.
Hell, if Obama were a football coach he’d already be gone by now. “I inherited a 1-15 team. Since then we’ve gone 2-14, 3-13, 3-13, and we’re on pace to go 4-12 this year! Stay the course! Forward!” But then football is actually results oriented with a clear metric for success, while the Presidency is just a marketing campaign.