Letters to the Editor
-
People don't tick the box because it doesn't work
Interesting article, but one quibble. Manjoo wrotes that the public doesn't support public financing and cites as evidence the drop off in the number of people who tick the box on their tax returns directing three dollars to candidates. In the 1970s, he points out, it was 30% of taxpayers and now it's one in 10. "If the people aren't willing to direct $3 to candidates, how can we expect them to go for anything more?" he asks.
But is that really the right question to ask? My first question would be: "Why would even one in ten people give money for a public financing scheme that has done nothing to clean up politics?"
My second question would be, "How popular is it in state and local jurisdictions in which it does exist?"
-
The Goal Should Be A Level Playing Field
No solution is a perfect solution. My hope is that candidates will be elected solely on the basis of their positions, past, present and the future. If you want to consider their character and personality, charisma and leadership skills, that is fine too. The point is that a public funded system ensures that money is equally divided among the candidates with no strings attached. I understand that some of you might prefer a system where you can give to a specific candidate (secretly or not.) However, that system could in fact work against your candidate. For example, I am supporting tentatively Tom Vilsack. You may be supporting Hillary Clinton. Chances are that Hillary (because of name recognition) will receive vastly more dollars than Tom and consequently, Tom won’t even get a legitimate chance to make his case. From my standpoint, this is a real shame because his positions are far closer to mine than Hillary’s. The answer is a level playing field. Let every candidate have the opportunity to make their case. The person that can do the best job of making their case to the largest number of voters deserves to win. The automatic contribution of every voter is simply a means of ensuring that we have a fair and equitable, and need I say democratic process of electing our politicians.
-
Negative Reinforcement
Doesn't work in politics. It's too slow, too 'after the fact'. Progressive ideas get promoted when progressive candidates get elected. Negative responses like not voting for someone because of their stance on an issue only have an impact if that vote is re-directed to a candidate who takes the stance you support- otherwise your negative response vanishes as a 'non-vote' statistic, indistinguishable from all the other non-voting bastards, retaining no meaning at all for politicians. As noted previously here, there is NO incumbent support for these kinds of reforms, and so it shall remain until we start electing 'the third way' or the 'unconventional candidate' who understands and beleives in the idea that serving in a corrupt institution can corrupt even the most honorable among us. Look at McCain's embarassing flirtations with power, and what it has done to his character.
-
The primacy of the money primary
This approach has one (I think) fatal flaw. It puts even more emphasis on the "money primary". It now becomes a literal money primary.
Forget about Iowa and New Hampshire. Each voter gets a $50 vote in the money primary. In a year like 2008, with no incumbents running, the primary season would be over before January. Anyone who hadn't gathered enough in the money primary wouldn't be a viable candidate in the actual primaries. You might as well just count the money, and declare a winner.
In a year like 2004, it's even worse. The Democrats blow their wad picking a candidate, and the Republicans have their entire war chest available for the general election. If the Democrats want to avoid that fate, they have to decide on a concensus candidate early on (but how?), and again, the primaries are over before January.
This puts even more emphasis on strategy, and less on qualifications. People would be reading the tea leaves of every straw poll, and deciding two years early whether their $50 vote would have a disproportional impact at any given time. In a year like the current one, a few thousand bloggers could create a sense of inevitability for a feel-good candidate like Barak Obama, that might never be overcome by substance.
It's an interesting idea, but count me out.
-
Not the Whole Answer
Blind donations are a great way to reduce pay-to-play style influence peddling on the part of politicians. It is pretty clear that unless they can verify that a particular favor will result in a specific contributions, politicans won't have much incentive to do the favor in the first place.
But, the pay-to-play model simplifies how influence and money mix in today's political world. When corporations, labor unions, or ideological groups fund candidates, they do so based on a belief about what the candidate's future performance will look like. If I am pro-choice, I fund pro-choice candidates. Whether or not they know that I am giving them money, my money is used to advance my political goals.
The $50 per person proposal helps a bit, by attempting to swamp private donations from the wealthy with small contributions from the middle and working classes. OK. I wonder how much of that money will be spent. Further, the initial start-up money -- then used to advertise to the masses for their contribuitons -- will still have to come from the wealthy.
The $50 per person proposal works wonders if it is accompanied by an absolute ban on other contributions. Of course, this runs into First Amendment problems. But it is, to my mind, the only way we can reduce the disparity of political influence of wealthy and less wealthy Americans. Pehaps we are comfortable with that disparity; it raises some serious moral problems for me.
-
money
i dont think money has much to do with how one votes at all. how much money is there to court the black vote or the womans vote. all the money in the world would not have prevented swiftboating results because the candidate did not understand the game in the first place. did clintons webcast really help her? too polished and over the top to be effective for many eople. people also vote in groups not as individuals. there are ethnic groups, unions, etc. by appointing naral people to run aspects of his campaign, edwards got a boost without spending much money. to have government dealing with this would be a nightmare. doling out bits of money to individuals? where are all the millions for katrina? presumably lost in the vast government halls. only an egghead from yale would come up with a situation so ridiculous. i laughed my head off.