Disclose, regulate and...

[Jim Davis <jdavis@aea10.k12.ia.us>]

Disclosure appeals to me in part as a matter of being public about public business. Recent experiences with air travel make me less than sanguine about deregulation. So the complexity of Choice 3 -- I do fear that the way "disclosed" information would be made public (small print, back page, etc.) could thwart the intent, there are also alternative, including technological ones, that could make such information accessible. One thing it could do is let the record of contributions/contributors become a verifiable issue in a campaign -- candidates could more easily keep tabs on each other and raise public awareness of respective bases of support.

Another part of the disclosure strategy is the prompt disclosure of contributions to Parties, not just to candidates, and of Party expenditures on behalf of candidates. The largest "donations" often go to Party, not candidate, and the largest donors contribute to two or more parties, clearly a statement that access, at least, is being sought/bought. Any approach to campaign funding, including disclosure, must look at the whole arena and at the "war chest" amassed between campaigns.

Following election, "access" means penetrating the bureacracy surrounding the elected official, the complex "estate" whose density seems to increase proportional to distance from the local voter and to state and national prominance. Lobbying is one path through this maze, so disclosure should also address who is using what paths to access, and how they relate to a history of contribution.

Broadly, campaign finance is part of the financing of politics, which may or may not be the conduct of public business in the public interest. Many of the concerns expressed in this discussion have in part to do with the exercise in government of something other than civic will and concern, of citizenship. Are there ways to make at least the election of public officials more a matter of the investment and actions of citizens and less the result of corporate and special interest investment? Is it possible to distinguish between civic special interest and other kinds of special interest? Is election of public officials public business which should be funded as public business, not through private contribution? Is the public way to fund election through a tax check-off, meaning in part that a far greater premium would have to be placed on the education of citizens who would have to know and care enough about the issue of election itself to prompt them to "check off" their PUBLIC investment in the process? Would more participate in the process they were choosing to fund? As do Choices 1&2, Choice 3 raises more questions for us to consider.