Summary: March 27, 2001

Forum Day 7: Choice #3: Publicize all political donations; don't regulate them.

After focusing for two days on Choice #2: Rein in Lobbyists and Politicians, forum participants were asked to begin deliberating about Choice #3. This choice claims that regulatory efforts to control money in politics have backfired and have actually harmed democracy instead of helping. This choice calls for restoring a freer system that served the country well for two centuries by fully disclosing all political donations.

Toward the end of this first day of deliberation, participation had been light and a second day remains for consideration of this choice.

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

Some participants continued to discuss some aspects of Choice #2, especially regarding lobbyists. And some postings began to consider some aspects of Choice #3, such as disclosing all political donations, lifting regulations on donations and making elections more competitive.

Some of the things expressed regarding full disclosure of campaign donations:

• Full disclosure will only have an effect if the public is receptive: to hear, read or do something about what is disclosed to them
• Voters need correct information to rely on instead of political advertising and full disclosure could help fill that need
• Full disclosure alone could be only a Band-Aid
• Even with full disclosure there are clever ways to disguise true money sources: "We'd see a lot of new organizations with names like... the Association of Really Nice People."
• Disclosure alone doesn't help with the runaway escalation of contributions- even big contributors have expressed interest in limits

Some of the things said about removing regulations and promoting competition:

• Some reforms and regulations are just a way of maintaining the status quo
• There are doubts that regulations really work anyway, or that government is truly capable of regulating itself
• Regulations are beneficial to the two-party system and stifle competition
• Removing regulations and applying market principles to campaigns might allow more choice for the public
• It seems that money will continue to roll into the system whether it is regulated or not
• If money is property, people should have the right to handle their property the way they choose
• Competition promotes individual freedom

There were also some comments expressing a desire to look beyond the specifics of regulations, competition, lobbying and voting to a system or process that would have a different basis:

• A desire for "Integrity of that which serves the best interests of the people."
• That the public should be doing "the right thing" instead of deciding on the basis of power- whether it be power of money or of votes
• A desire for a process "that challenges us to be better people than mere pursuers of our own interests... I still believe that encouraging virtue is worthwhile."

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 27, 2001