The Fuzzy Criteria Problem

[Steve Johnson <stevenhjohnson@juno.com>]

As a preface, two disclosure statements:

1) My larger value system: I think our democratic system would work better if we ran it more like a giant quality circle and less like a giant name-calling society.

2) On campaign financing: I favor optional public funding. If A chooses public funding, there's a target amount that A will receive.  If B also chooses public funding, they get the same amount and they each make their case to the voters.  If B chooses private funding, and raises more than the target, then the public funding for A is increased, so that no matter how much B spends, A will have enough to match B's spending.  

Optional public funding doesn't restrict free speech, but it keeps those with greater access to big money from being rewarded for their superior access.  The main idea, of course, is to have most candidates choose the public funding route, so that those elected won't feel nearly so beholden to large contributors.

With those two disclosures out of the way, on to Choice 3.  What's fuzzy are the criteria that matter most in evaluating this option.  

Protecting the independence of elected officials?  If elected officials owe their election to the generosity of the advocacy groups whose causes they champion, are they as independent as we'd like them to be?  If this is my top criterion, Option 3 will score poorly.

Protecting the ability of elected officials to function as advocates?  Maybe it is the job of elected officials to fight like hell for those who bankrolled their campaign?  Some might call this solidarity, and see it as a virtue.  Option 3 might look good if this is my favorite criterion.

Protecting the principle of equality among all voters?  Shouldn't elected representatives try to serve all voters equally, not bias their service toward voters with big money, and away from voters with little or no money?  Option 3 looks bad by this standard.

Protecting the freedom of those with big money to buy as much political advertising as they feel like buying?  It's their money; who has the right to restrict how they spend it?  Option 3 looks quite attractive by this standard.

Of these criteria, I give the most weight to protecting the principle of equality among all voters.  Option 3 therefore draws a negative rating from me.

But it's not simple.  All of the criteria mentioned, plus others, have their merits.  A Win-Win Solution, if there's one to be had, would be one that scores well on as many criteria as possible.