Time to take control

[gazelle1929]

I wrote the following a year and a half ago, more or less, and circulated it on another forum, where I got absolutely no response. Several months ago I sent it to Ian Ayres, totally unaware that he had written a book somewhat along the same lines. His response to me was positive, particularly the part about extending the concept of public funding of elections to the state level. And he had the good grace not to mention to me that he had written a whole book on the subject. Overall I prefer my approach because his makes it actually not as easy to pump money anonymously into the political process. His procedures, though, clarify how to fund exploratory campaigns without getting the budding politician into bed with a wealthy donor. Without further ado:

Most people are pretty upset by the latest money scandal in Washington. We don’t much like the idea that our Congressmen and Senators are for sale to the highest bidders, because what it really means is that our wishes are pretty much meaningless. It’s a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Isn’t it time to take back control? Actually, it’s past time. Remember back in 1994 when the Republicans promised a Contract with America; they pledge to clean up the Democrats’ mess in Washington. Well that didn’t work out very well, did it? Those Congressmen came to Washington to do good for the country and ended up doing really well for themselves.

I believe it’s time for some “Biblical action.” Jesus drove the moneylenders out of the temple; let’s drive the money vendors out of the Capitol. Here’s how we can do it.

Make it illegal for any individual, corporation, foreign entity, or whatever else you can think of, to give money directly to or spend money on behalf of any political party, any politician, any candidate for political office, or any political action committee. Instead, let’s require that political activity be funded by verifiable donations through a clearinghouse which would prevent the recipients from knowing the names of the donors.

How would this work, you wonder. Here’s one way. Every taxpayer would be allowed to designate a certain amount of his taxes to be paid directly into the coffers of a designated political party (or parties if he wants to split it up.) For talking purposes let’s say $30. In 2004 the Federal Election Commission sent about $110 million to the parties from the existing checkoff system, which allows each taxpayer to send $3 in tax revenues to political parties. My proposal would put perhaps $1.5 billion in tax money into the coffers of the parties.

In addition to the checkoff, though, taxpayers could opt to pay an additional amount to a party by authorizing the Government to decrease their refunds or to increase their taxes due. For discussion purposes, let’s use the number $150 per taxpayer. If ten percent of the taxpayers who checked off the current $3 did this, that would be an additional perhaps $2 billion for the parties.

The parties receiving the money would have to use this for all Congressional and Senatorial campaigns in addition to campaigns for the Presidency. Funding for political parties at the state and local level would be dependent upon similar plans, probably at the state level, though states could opt not to use any tax money for supporting the political parties. Leave it up to them. The national political parties could decide how to allocate their funds though, providing money for state and local offices at their discretion. But state-level money would have to be spent in the state. The Social Party in California could not take any money from the state of California and spend it on candidates for national office. Only for state and local office.

But no party that participated in this program would be allowed to raise money from any other source, whether it’s donations, dues, bake sales, bribes, selling t-shirts or bumper stickers, or any other source. Candidates could not spend their own money for campaigning.

A party would not have to participate; but their opponent(s) would quickly take the higher moral ground and point out that there is no guarantee that the nonparticipating party is completely above-board.

What about the smaller parties? The IRS would provide each taxpayer with a checkoff form. The form would have the names of those parties which had:

a. a candidate for President on the ballot in at least half of the states,

b. candidates for Congress on the ballot in at least half of the states,

c. had on the rolls in at least half of the states at least five percent of all affiliated voters in those respective states,
or

d. such other criteria the Congress decides on.

In addition, a taxpayer could write in the name of any party which had registered with the Federal Election Commission, provided it met certain very minimal criteria.

Penalties for violation would be draconian (at least in comparison to what they are now.) A candidate, politician, incumbent, or any other person who receives money in violation of this set of laws would receive a minimum jail sentence of 10 years, with no suspended sentence, no parole, a minimum fine of $10 million, and would be debarred for life from seeking office.

A corporation convicted of spending money on behalf of a political party, candidate, or incumbent, would be immediately dissolved, with all net assets going to the government (the stockholders would not get one nickel!), and the persons responsible for the violation would face penalties equal to those faced by the recipients.

A political party which violated the provisions of this law would be debarred from taking money from the campaign financing pool, and any money otherwise due it would be divided pro rata among the other parties. In addition, the convicted political party would be debarred from fielding candidates for a period of at least ten years.

Could organizations and corporations still lobby.? Sure. They just couldn’t give money to politicians or spend money on their behalf. Golf trips to Scotland? Not on my watch. Plane trips to ski resorts for the Senator and his girl friend. I don’t think so. A thousand dollar dinner for Congressman Schmo to convince him to vote for the pig poop lobby? Nope. But if someone wants to hire a lobbyist to go around to various Congressmen to try to convince them that voting for a National Home for Unwed Fathers is a good idea, have at it. But don’t spend a nickel on a campaign contribution or buying the Congressman a hotdog, because if you do you are gonna go to jail, right next to the Congressman’s cell.

Harsh? You darned betcha. But fair to the voters? I think so. Can we do it? If all of the voters got together we could move mountains. Certainly we could do it if we all got behind serious reform.

[merrylander]

Simply outlaw the lobbyists, the Supremes are the most to blame for this mess by declaring it is covered by the Constitution and that has to be the most perverted interpretation of that document I have ever seen.

[gazelle1929]

The problem is really not the lobbyists, it's the people who give the lobbyists the money to spend. If you got rid of registered lobbyists the money people would just find a new way to buy influence.

[d-ray657]

For your plan to be implemented, you would also have to amend the First Amendment, especially with respect to the "issue ads." While those are clearly for the benefit of one or another party, if they don't mention a candidate or party, restriction of their ability to buy air time to express a point of view would undoubtedly violate free speech protection.

Also if the only way for a candidate to get money is through the party, that practically precludes any rump candidates from mounting a challenge to a party favorite. I would significantly increase the power of incumbancy.

I think is would be more practical to limit the influence of lobbyists. Prohibit any company who had donated to a candidate in a congressional race from engaging a lobbyist to speak to a congress or a congressman for two years after making the donation. The would still be constitutional issues, such as the right to "petition the government."

Reform of the lobbying process absolutely needs reform. It is unconscionable that those with money can have greater access to those in power than the rest of us, who probably need the government's resouces more than the coporations. Whatever restrictions are enacted, however, influence peddlers would find a way to manuever around them. For example, even if unuions or religious organizations could not contribute money, they can offer manpower for canvassing, getting out the vote, stuffing envelopes, etc.

I think it would be unconstitutional to prohibit one from buying airtime to criticize a public official. Therefore, even a company cant contribute and lobby at the same time, their lobbyist could say "if you ain't for us you're agin' us," and back it up with critical television ads.

Point is that there are a huge number of obstacles to overcome to enforce effective legislation to clean up lobbying, we must make the effort.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

For your plan to be implemented, you would also have to amend the First Amendment, especially with respect to the "issue ads." While those are clearly for the benefit of one or another party, if they don't mention a candidate or party, restriction of their ability to buy air time to express a point of view would undoubtedly violate free speech protection.

Also if the only way for a candidate to get money is through the party, that practically precludes any rump candidates from mounting a challenge to a party favorite. I would significantly increase the power of incumbancy.

I think is would be more practical to limit the influence of lobbyists. Prohibit any company who had donated to a candidate in a congressional race from engaging a lobbyist to speak to a congress or a congressman for two years after making the donation. The would still be constitutional issues, such as the right to "petition the government."

Reform of the lobbying process absolutely needs reform. It is unconscionable that those with money can have greater access to those in power than the rest of us, who probably need the government's resouces more than the coporations. Whatever restrictions are enacted, however, influence peddlers would find a way to manuever around them. For example, even if unuions or religious organizations could not contribute money, they can offer manpower for canvassing, getting out the vote, stuffing envelopes, etc.

I think it would be unconstitutional to prohibit one from buying airtime to criticize a public official. Therefore, even a company cant contribute and lobby at the same time, their lobbyist could say "if you ain't for us you're agin' us," and back it up with critical television ads.

Point is that there are a huge number of obstacles to overcome to enforce effective legislation to clean up lobbying, we must make the effort.

Regards,

D-Ray

They have us bent over a barrel and they know it.

Perhaps instead of Tea Parties, we should be having Guillotine Parties. But we'll have to join as one to be effective.

Chas

[HatchetJack]

But, If I cant buy my congressman a hot dog and explain how my business
operates, how would he know whether or not to vote in my favor? And if he
unknowingly helps to pass legislation that damages small or big businesses
and makes them less profitable, would that not lead to less revenue, taxes
and jobs slowing the economy even more?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

But, If I cant buy my congressman a hot dog and explain how my business
operates, how would he know whether or not to vote in my favor? And if he
unknowingly helps to pass legislation that damages small or big businesses
and makes them less profitable, would that not lead to less revenue, taxes
and jobs slowing the economy even more?

Why do you need to buy him a hot dog to tell him that? Wouldn't he understand it just as well in his office. I mean as taxpayers, we pay plenty to allow them to maintain nice offices, why shouldn't we be welcomed there?

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Or we could use Fox's editing techniques to represent your position.

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

But, If I cant buy my congressman . . . how would he know whether or not to vote in my favor?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Chairman Mao made an interesting statement concerning "how to make friends and influence people".

Chas

[HatchetJack]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Why do you need to buy him a hot dog to tell him that? Wouldn't he understand it just as well in his office. I mean as taxpayers, we pay plenty to allow them to maintain nice offices, why shouldn't we be welcomed there?

Regards,

D-Ray

Good point, they should understand and welcome us but they might not and
just make a knee jerk reaction because they only heard one side of the story.
Lets say John Doe operates a lemon tree grove and also produces lemonade.
John hires a lobbyist who knows the congressman very well and also
represents other beverage businesses. He explains what John does for a living
and how many local citizens works for him and the good he does for the
community. He passes on a 1,000.00 check made out to the campain of ......
and maybe they even get together and eat out or go shoot quail together.
2 years down the road a bill comes up that could somehow hurt John's
business. The congressman doesnt like lemons anyway and may well have
voted John out business due to what some wacko organization told him.
But recalling the visit with John he makes the correct choice. People keep
their jobs and John makes it another year.