Summary: March 28, 2001

Forum Day 8: Choice #3: Publicize all political donations; don't regulate them.

This was the second day of a two-day deliberation about Choice #3, which proposes that regulatory efforts have done more harm than good and calls for restoring a freer system through requiring immediate disclosure of all political donations and making elections more competitive by lifting regulations.

Toward the end of this last day of deliberation of Choice #3, 119 out of over 200 registered forum participants had made at least one posting since the beginning of the forum on March 19, 2001.

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

The discussion today centered mostly on disclosure of political contributions. This topic was often discussed in comparison to, or in combination with, reforming or regulating how campaigns are funded.

Aspects of Choice #3 that some participants found appealing:

• Since regulating or reducing the money in campaigns is so difficult, if not impossible-"Like nailing Jell-O to a tree"-perhaps it would be better to just let it flow but know more about the sources
• It would be desirable to have a more competitive political system
• Reforms are "nothing more than an incumbent-protection system"
• Disclosure of contributions is appealing as "a matter of being public about public business"
• Prompt disclosure would help people know who is seeking influence and what they are likely to expect after the election

Some of the concerns expressed about disclosure of donations:

• It is only one piece of the puzzle and should be accompanied by some regulation
• There may already be adequate disclosure, but the information is not easily accessible by everyone
• Disclosing contributions alone does nothing to remedy the corrupting influence that money has on officeholders
• Disclosure alone would not help non-incumbent challengers
• Disclosure will be useful only to the extent that the public is engaged enough to take in and evaluate the information
• Disclosure also needs some "teeth" to penalize violators

Discussion of disclosure of contributions and increasing competitiveness in the political system also elicited these themes:

• To a large extent the public relies on "a vigilant press", and watchdog and opposition groups to track down and reveal pertinent information and hidden agendas because individuals don't have the time or resources to do it all
• There are many ways, other than money, that people try to "influence" the course of public affairs, such as getting out the vote-- trying to influence the process has a legitimate role in our democratic (representative) system
• There is a recurring assertion that the vote is where the real and enduring "equality" and power to influence the system lie
• There may some, as yet unclarified way or combination of ways, to sever the connection between money and influence-- such as requiring that all contributions be made anonymously
• This may be a never-ending struggle requiring continued vigilance-"As those that pervert the present system learn to abuse the reformed one, then we start to fight again"

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 28, 2001