Summary: March 21, 2001

Forum Day 3 Agenda: Choice #1: Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising System.

The forum moderator began today by explaining that this was the first day of a two-day deliberation about Choice #1. This choice promotes restoring political equality through campaign finance reforms such as: reducing the amount of money individuals can contribute, eliminating corporate gifts to candidates and political organizations, public funding of elections, and providing free airtime to candidates. The moderator asked participants to consider during the day's deliberation: What is appealing about this choice, but also, what might be some undesirable results or drawbacks to this approach?

Toward the end of this first day of deliberation of Choice #1, 98 of the more than 200 registered forum participants had posted at least one comment, story or question since the beginning of the forum.

Note: Postings appearing after this summary was written will be included in the next day's summary.

Throughout the day participants offered specifics and generalities about what they see as the pros and cons, drawbacks and consequences of this choice. There were four repeatedly expressed concerns that appeared to form the underpinnings of many, if not most, of the comments posted today about Choice #1. Participants expressed strongly and in many different ways that:

• Something needs to be done; the country should take a "step in the right direction"
• It is far from clear whether spending money on political campaigns is a form of speech that should be protected as a freedom
• People want the political system to be a more "level playing field" and yearn for some reform(s) that will have a "democratizing" effect and promote equality instead of control and power
• Voters should know through full disclosure where money in politics is coming from

Some of the things about Choice #1 that participants found appealing were:

• Limiting money might limit being able to "buy influence"
• Reforms might inject more competition and choice into the two-party system
• Public funding would equalize opportunities to run for office
• Similar measures seem to be working on a state level in some places
• It might free officeholders to spend more time doing the jobs they were elected to do
• Free airtime for candidates seems like a logical use of the public airwaves

At the same time participants worried that:

• Limiting spending may be a restriction of freedom of speech
• More regulations tend to diminish liberty
• Providing free airtime may be difficult and complicated to implement fairly
• New regulations may just be repeating and adding to old, ineffective, even counterproductive regulations, and just produce smarter loophole artists
• The people writing the reforms are those least motivated to do it right- the "foxes in the henhouse"
• Spending limits will make it easier for wealthy people to get elected
• More regulations provide an excuse for escaping public responsibility

Some participants identified trade-offs that might be made:

• It may be necessary to give up some freedoms "for the good of society"
• Providing free airtime and leveling the campaign playing field might mean listening to a lot more candidates on a lot more channels
• People would have to make more of an effort to let officeholders know what they want if lobbyists aren't doing it for them
• Leveling the playing field might increase the quantity, but not necessarily the quality of candidates to choose from

The intent of each day's summary is to capture the essence of the conversation. It is for the benefit of participants and for others who may be observing the forum, or may be interested in the topic, or in the process. Comments on the summaries, as well as on any aspect of the forum, are as always, more than welcome.

Patty Dineen
Online Forum Reporter, March 21, 2001