Problem #6: Pay-to-Play Elections
Here’s a topic near and dear to my heart: the increasing cost of elections in the United States. When we say “increasing” costs, it’s no exaggeration to describe them as having skyrocketed. In 1972 election between Richard Nixon + George McGovern cost a bit more than $300 million. The 2000 election between George W. Bush + Al Gore cost about $450 million. And, in 2012, Barack Obama + Mitt Romney’s campaigns spent a combined $6.4 billion dollars. These enormous costs. combined with a reliance on private donors that they engender, lends to belief that all politicians are bought + paid for, and that the views of the American people, no matter what their leanings, are being ignored.
There is, fortunately, a relatively simple solution: Make all Federal elections publically-funded, via voluntary check off box in Federal tax forms. Individual states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Vermont, already have public funding for state elections3. While Federal matching funds do exist4, these are clearly seen as being too low to allow for a competitive campaign. The goal should be to have all funds be public, allowing no suggestion of private influence via campaign contributions.
The high costs of campaigns have another effect: they reinforce the completely extra-Constitutional two party system. In turn, this makes it more difficult for independent voices to be heard- unless they represent, or are funded by, some of the same sources of money that are already perceived as having bought the system.
Another idea: require TV networks to provide free, limited time for political advertisements. This can be done as part of the agreement by which they are granted the rights to profit from public airways.
Still another idea: shorten the election season. If Canada can hold elections in less than 3 months5, and the UK in about 1 month, then surely the US can do the same. This will have the welcome effect of reducing the outrageous costs of elections, as well as reducing public cynicism regarding them.
Finally: Overturn Citizens United v. FEC by amending Constitution to explicitly overturn “corporate personhood.” The entire notion of “corporate personhood” began with headnotes made by a court reporter to the Supreme Court decision of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad7. For the Roberts Court to elevate this to a Constitutional principle is judicial activism of the first rate, and should make anyone claiming to believe in Constitutional originalism blush. The Founders clearly never envisioned a “person” as being anything other than a natural-born human being; had they thought otherwise, it’s likely that they would have made such feelings clear, or at least suggested as much.
The end result of these reforms should be to restore faith in our government. It may be apocryphal, but supposedly, when Benjamin Franklin was asked upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, what had they given us, he said “a republic- if you can keep it.” Removing the stain of big money from our elections would be an excellent step to help us do so.
All of the solutions you propose involve some level of control or administration by the state except overturning Citizens United and making networks provide free airtime. I'm not some libertarian that sees that state as a boogie man, so that's not a critique per se. but in the United States there will always be the First Amendment question - the problem of state interference with expression. in the context of Citizen's United, the solution is easy enough: Congress could strip corporations of personhood via their power to regulate interstate commernce, recognizing that the corporation is a device for encouraging certain types of economic activity by detaching investment from decision making and resulting liability - nothing more, nothing less. but as long as you have individuals with pools of wealth, how can you tell them that they can't spend that wealth on messaging for their own run for office or on somebody else's run for office? i don't think you really can. so that leaves reqiring networks to provide free airtime, which is essentially another type of state control but for the theoretical proposition that networks use the airwaves on loan from the people on terms set for the public good. and while its a good idea, it was a better idea in the Nader days - or even the Dean days - and each election cycle will see the viability of that idea as vehicle for reform decline. anyone can get their message out there for free by posting on a video site and having the good fortune of having it go viral. meanwhile, i didn't see a single political ad on television last cycle (even as my parents complained of being swamped with nasty ads) because i get my news from blogs, my tv from hulu and netflix, etc. And i'm 35 - you think the kids are watching TV the way our parents did? Fat chance.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most important thing we can do is to do everything we can to keep the internet as free and open as possible. the more people play in walled gardens, the more the internet becomes like TV - with gatekeepers eager to make money off the process, driving up the cost of campaigning, and perpetuating politicians dependence on big money. so we should be fighting to make mobile internet is as free and open as wired internet. we should be fighting to break the monopolies and if we're going to keep the monopolies, regulate them like a utility to ensure access and neutrality. and whenever possible, we should encourage people to choose the free option - fedora over ubuntu, ubuntu over chrome, chrome over windows, windows over osx; ubuntu over android; android over iOS; wordpress over blogger; RSS over twitter; open/libre office over microsoft office, microsoft office over the cloud; firefox over chrome, chrome over opera, opera over explorer; etc.