I accept as a given that any attempts to limit the amount of money people want to spend on elections is futile. We cannot effectively limit cash. It’s even been declared speech by the Supreme Court. I am surprized that any rules still exist. I’ll be patient. They will all go by the board.
I also accept as a given that pols accept two basic kinds of money, large money and small money. Small money, for example, is no more than $250 annually to all of a candidate’s campaign funds, PACs and whatever else a candidate shills, is clean money. No single contribution makes or breaks a candidate. Large money is when donors give the max and encourage their friends to do likewise. That is money the talks, it says, “Here, and in return…”
Large money is the source of government ineffectiveness and government corruption. I’ll let others argue that it’s not. I accept that it is. Money buys things. Pols are things. Pols are bought. I wonder if Goldmans has figured out a way to securitize pols and sell them to investors?
We cannot beat money per se. We cannot limit its flow. However there a few reasonable things we can do to mitigate the effects of the cash.
First, why don’t we trade existing law that limits campaign fundraising for a bit of calendar and a bit of geography? It’s a small thing to ask to gain unlimited cash. I’m sure our pols will not object--they will be able to collect more cash.
A calendar is imposed on donations. We suggest a modest rule. Donations can only be collected during the calendar year in which a pol is running for election. During that year, from January 1st to December 31st, unlimited amounts of cash can be collected. The cash can be spent any way the candidate wishes to spend it. The cash can be carried over to the next election. The cash belongs to the candidate, period. However, as we made a trade on election administration, both trades call for a return of comprehensive accounting.
Pols have to say who the money came from, how much was given, when it was given, how it was given, where it was received and by whom. Names and addresses have to be collected. The donations have to be reported within 24 hours or less of receipt. The reporting will be made into a public database.
Since we all know that corporations are really made up of people, when a corporation makes an unlimited donation, the name of the company, plus the names of the CEO, Chairman of the Board and CFO must also be reported. Similarly with any organization that donates, the names of those who make financial decisions must be reported. It’s a small price to ask for unlimited cash. Give your money, give your name and address. Who can object to this?
As money flows in, it also flows out for one year. Election cycles are one year long. Money can flow for 365 days. Then the flow ends. It awaits the next election cycle. Campaign money is just that, campaign money. Oh, those odd little fund raising groups like the RCCC and DCCC have to follow the same rules. They get one year a term to be as greedy as they may. Then it stops. Ditto the Prez.
For example all the House members and their PACs during an election year go bonkers. They rake cash in, they spend it, and they bank it. As the year ends, they become deaf dumb and blind vis a vis campaign funds. For one year, they try to govern. For one year they behave as they do today. We receive a 50% improvement in our Representatives.
In the Senate the same obtains. However we have to remember the Senate is elected in thirds. The one-third that is elected in a cycle, has one year to grab all the fiscal gusto they can. Then, upon victory, they end all campaign cash activity. The winner have five years to SenatorialIn the sixth year it would be grab every gold ring you can.
In the Senate, this would allow every other year to be a year in which all 100 members could live up their oaths of office since no one would be running for office. In the other on years, one-third would be running. With this change the Senate might again becomes the world’s greatest deliberative body instead of enjoying it’s status as the world’s greatest debilitative body. We would receive a 33% improvement in our Senators.
I almost forgot. Remember that public database that documents the money pols collect? It’s also used to account for every expenditure. Every penny in has to accounted for. If a penny is spent it has to be accounted for, in detail. How much detail, well have you ever had to deal with an accountant from hell? We can discuss the accounting at another time.
As unlimited money comes in and it accounted for election years we also have to bring in geography. Elections are local events. We have House Districts and States. Representatives serve Districts of about 708,000 people. Senators serve entire states. I have never understood anyone raising money outside their district or state.
I bet you have anticipated the next exchange. A pol can collect unlimited cash during an election year as long as it comes from within the jurisdiction he serves. Reps are restricted to funds from any entity in his district. Similarly Senators are restricted to donors from his state alone.
Obviously, the President is a national office. Hence a candidate to the top slot can take cash from anyone in the United States. His reach is limited but his hands can hold as much cash as folks want to give him. It’s all his. Of course, that means the first three years he’s in office, he can be presidential since campaign finance cannot begin until January 1 of his election year cycle. Gee, a 75% improvement in the presidency!
Let’s Review. As We the People use the Presidential Election Fund and the FEC to fund all elections, We expect all candidates will be treated fairly. We change how and when we have elections. Granted this is driven by federal elections. I assume states and localities will follow the same rules in all of their elections, both those timed with the federal and the off years. It’s a small price to pay for all the money that will be granted to states and localities. It’s a reasonable swap, isn’t it?
We also trade away existing finance laws. In exchange for unlimited campaign cash, we ask for a bit of accounting, a calendar, and some geography. We expect campaign cash to be fully accounted for, in public. Similarly, we ask for a bit of calendar and geography based rules. These rules not to limit the how much cash can be accepted, but merely the when and where is can be banked. It seems to a fair trade. It might make things better, I doubt it could make things worse.
Now about the advertising...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment