Some Final Thoughts on Reform

[Jay Oliver <jaydeeo@aol.com>]

Thanks to all who participated.  It looks like most of us are only in agreement that we disagree.  Since today seems dedicated to good, old-fashioned political rants, in addition to the actual "Wrap-up," I'll add my share.

There seem to be at least five major complaints on the part of those endorsing reform: 1) the cost of a modern political campaign, 2) the excessive demands on a candidate's time for raising necessary funds, 3) the unfair influence exerted upon politicians by those with monetary resources, 4) the difficulty of ordinary people to run for and get elected to public office, and 5) the unseemly message of an appearance of corruption sent to the voters.

Concerning the first, largely it is without merit.  Almost EVERYTHING costs more today than in the past, due primarily to governmental actions and policies, such as its steady inflation of the currency and its regulations and taxation.  The few exceptions are those products and services that the politicians haven't yet gotten around to over-regulating or over-taxing (computers and electronics) or those very few for which they've actually reduced such controls (telephone service and air travel).  Politicians should look into a mirror to see who's really responsible for this "problem."  Besides, total campaign expenditures on all levels remain a tiny fraction of one percent of the gross domestic product, or even of the Federal budget, for that matter.

As to time "wasted" by politicians in raising money, so what?  A great many "ordinary" people undoubtedly feel that their time spent on fund-raising affects their "real" work as well.  Clergymen and religious workers, entrepreneurs starting a new business, college presidents, museum directors, heads of charities, and artists applying for NEA grants are only a few that come to mind.  What about the cumulative wasted time and lost productivity on the part of millions of individual citizens and businesses in complying with the paperwork requirements of countless government mandated laws and regulations?  Why should the egos of politicians, bruised by their "debasing" themselves in asking for donations, be more important than those of ordinary citizens?  Again, politicians should gaze into the nearest mirror for a view of the real culprit who caused this "problem."

Regarding the unfair advantage enjoyed by the wealthy interests in influencing politicians, as former President Jimmy Carter said, in one of his few genuinely insightful moments, "Life is not fair."  People with means have many advantages over those without, and inequality of circumstance is inevitable in a truly free society.  Why should their political influence be of greater concern than their abilities to obtain better education for their children, better health care for their families, etc?  Besides, the ultimate form of political influence is exercising the right to vote, and believe it or not, any two of the poorest people in the worst inner city ghetto or rural tarpaper shack have twice as much of that influence as does a Bill Gates.

With regard to the complaint that ordinary people have trouble challenging incumbents, undoubtedly this is true.  However, the presently advocated reforms make this situation WORSE, not better.  By a strange coincidence, the "ideal" lower amounts cited by many of the reformers as limits on campaigns just happen also to be lower than the average amount spent by the infrequent successful challengers who actually defeat incumbents! 

Finally, concerning the appearance of corruption issue, in fairness, this cannot be dismissed out of hand, and indeed the Supreme Court has ruled that it may legitimately be considered with regard to campaign funding regulations.  But, are politicians, or at least a significant number of them, really "for sale" to big donors to their campaign treasuries?  Curiously, this charge tends to be raised with regard to votes on controversial issues, such as abortion and gun control.  Now, by definition, an issue is controversial usually when there are significant numbers of people with strong feelings on both sides.  Does anyone really believe that a Ted Kennedy or a Jesse Helms has been "bought" by Handgun Control, Inc. or NRA donations to their campaigns?  Or, is the reason for the donations that they already believe strongly and vote as they do, therefore these special interest groups want to help them stay in office?  Now, if some lower profile Senator were to do an about-face and vote differently than he had been doing for years, AND if he had received a recent large donation from a group whose agenda he now favors, then there may be a problem.  But, it seems that the appropriate solution to this is not reform, but rather a shining of light on such actions, via a Choice #3 sort of disclosure law.

Ironically, almost all of the alleged problems of campaign financing exist today because of previous "reforms" instituted by the politicians themselves!  They, and not special interests, restricted amounts that may be given to a candidate, attempted to restrict expenditures by candidates, and created different types of money, "hard" and "soft."  They, and not the wealthy, established an income taxation system that treats citizens inequitably.  They, and not potential challengers or third party members rigged the system to be grossly biased in favor of incumbents and the two major parties.  They, and not anyone else, cast the votes that they claim have been "bought."  Since obviously they don't trust each other, or eben themselves, are they to be trusted to fix the "problems" that they created?

Ultimately, many of the reforms advocated fail on a more basic level than merely that of their alleged need or their potential efficacy.  Whether it makes for messy politics or not, all citizens, rich and poor, have certain rights.   The Bill of Rights exists for the two purposes of asserting their existence and of forbidding the government from abrogating them.  The standards for violating free speech are very high, such as prevention of a clear and present danger (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for example), or of asserting a compelling state interest, with "compelling" and not "interest" being the operable word.  The advocates for reform have NOT made a "compelling" case.