Volume 16 - July 22, 1998
MONEY AND POLITICS: RETHINKING REFORM
Dear Readers,
Money and Politics - it is a partnership that has never made sense to me. In Junior High back in Whittier they taught us that democracy was about a principle - one person, one vote. That did make sense to me. Then another Whittier homeboy (the cousin of my math teacher, Mrs. Milhous) got evicted from the White House. Good citizens everywhere worried that money was corrupting our democracy and took up the mantle of political reform. As a high school student I leafleted door to door in 1974 for Proposition 9, the California Political Reform Act.
In the early 1980s I served as the lobbyist for California Common Cause, giving me the joyous experience of being a 26 year old bearded kid trying to tell lawmakers how to "clean up politics" (and you can imagine how receptive the were). Yet, after all these years, this mixing of money and politics still seems to me to be at the heart of what is broken about democracy. But I have also come to the reluctant conclusion that the "reform" ideas most of us have pushed for twenty five years aren't getting us anywhere. With that in mind I offer this little essay to prod all our thinking.
Jim Shultz The Democracy Center
MONEY AND POLITICS: RETHINKING REFORM
Suppose you sat down to write a job description for being a candidate for public office. What would you list as the most important qualifications? You'd probably want the person to be smart, thoughtful, and not too much of an egomaniac. You might also want them to genuinely care about "the people" and to be an able fighter for the causes you believe in. But what about this one:
"Applicant must know a lot of people with money and have a strong ability to ask people to give them money."
It seems an odd qualification for holding public office. What kind of people does that raise to the top? Who does it filter out?. But raising money is qualification #1. Show me a candidate that isn't an able fundraising machine and I'll show you someone who's a job seeker the day after the election.
Somewhere in our history we made a very curious decision about our democracy - we decided that candidates for public office must bear the financial cost of communicating their message to voters. Perhaps once upon a time when campaigns were cheaper raising money wasn't that hard. Today, competitive elections for the California Legislature often top $500,000 (and much more for Congress or statewide offices). First and foremost, political campaigns are fundraising operations.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Once you establish the principle that candidates and campaigns have to be fundraising machines, the results are pretty well set. Candidates need money and the only real place to get it is from the very same lobbying groups that want their vote on legislation. It's hard to blame the candidates, they fundraise for sheer political survival. The big contributors, they play because it is smart. Whether it's the utilities or cigarette companies on one side or labor unions on the other, big givers are just practicing the old fashioned principal of return on investment. Make no mistake, money spent influencing politics and public policy is one of the most lucrative investments you can make.
Here's a favorite example. In 1990 the alcohol lobby spent $27 million to defeat a California alcohol tax initiative that would have boosted their taxes by $750 million per year. That's a 28 to 1 return on investment in the first year alone. You can't get that building a new brewery. The same is true for investing in candidates' campaigns. In fact, you could ague that if corporate leaders didn't spend what it takes to buy the political system they could be sued for violation of their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. The culprit is the system and our continuing acceptance of the basic principal that if you want to run, you got to get the dough.
THE REFORMS THAT HAVEN'T WORKED
For three decades political reformers have tried to cut the politics/money connection, with a focus on four basic strategies. First, require disclosure of who gives and how much so voters can "follow the money". Second, try to put a cap on campaign spending to reduce the amount of money being spent. Third, put limits on contributions to limit the role of "big money" and tilt the power more toward smaller donors. Finally, try to win approval for public (i.e. taxpayer) funding for candidates so they have an alternative "clean" source of cash for their campaigns. I know the agenda well, I pushed it hard in my days as a Common Cause lobbyist.
So, three decades later, where has this agenda brought us? The "disclosure" information is mostly buried in state files where 99% of the voters never see it. Caps on spending have been blocked cold by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices insist that unlimited political spending is "free speech" protected by the First Amendment and they seem unlikely to reverse themselves in my lifetime. Contribution limits send candidates chasing after more donors and using more of their time on fundraising instead of talking issues. On the public financing of campaigns, it seems hard to believe that the public will ever buy into the idea of giving tax dollars directly to politicians, especially given the empty glop that most candidates send us through our mailboxes, televisions and radios. The end result of reform - the money/politics marriage is only tighter than ever.
A DIFFERENT WAY
What would happen if we took a totally fresh look at political reform? What kind of an agenda would make a difference, win public support and not depend on judges having a sudden change of heart. The basic thing is that it ought to be possible for good people to run and serve who don't know lots of people with money and who aren't good at asking for cash. We need to create alternative, cost-free ways by which citizen-candidates can communicate their messages to voters. Here are some ideas:
1) Make the California Ballot Pamphlet as Enticing to Read as "People Magazine".
Here we are in a state that prides itself as being the center of communication savvy (with Hollywood in the south and Silicon Valley in the North) and California's official voter education tool looks and reads like a 1950's accounting textbook. Let's build it up. Let's give candidates (state and local) some real pages to tell their stories, and require them to talk about issues. Let's use graphics, photographs, humor - whatever it takes to make voters want to crack the thing open and have a look.
2) Give All Statewide Candidates Free Access To Television.
If you want to know where elections are decided look at where candidates spend their money - on the tube. Here's reality, if you want to get your message out to voters you need to be there in the middle of "Friends" and "ER". Let's either require broadcasters to provide free air time or have the state buy blocks of it. Then let's put the candidates on and make them talk about the issues. Sound too boring? Fine, then ask Robin Williams to do the questioning. The bottom line is let's give all candidates access to the airwaves where elections are decided and lets find a format that will make people want to watch.
3) Let's Have Disclosure That Voters Can Really See.
If we are still going to have candidates raising piles of money from their political friends then make it completely clear to the voters who those friends are. Let's require candidates to list their top two donors in every ad they buy and every brochure they mail, in BIG PRINT. Who you get your money from tells us a great deal and it ought to be out there, front and center, in the campaign.
Would some of these ideas cost some state money.
Sure. But these costs would pale in comparison to
what the current system costs us in terms of special favors,
tax breaks and the like. As I said before, investing
cash in the political process is extremely lucrative and
it is time that the public got a little piece of the action.
________________________________________________________________________
THE DEMOCRACY CENTER ON-LINE is an electronic publication of The Democracy Center, distributed on an occasional basis to more than 1000 nonprofit organizations, policy makers, journalists and others.
Please consider forwarding it along to those who might be interested. People can request to be added to the distribution list by sending an e-mail note to "JShultz@democracyctr.org".
Permission is granted to copy or excerpt any material in
the newsletter, with notice and credit to The Democracy
Center. Suggestions and comments are welcome.
Past issues are available on The Democracy Center Web site.
The Democracy Center 1535 Mission St. - San Francisco, CA 94122 (415) 431-2051 tel./ (415) 431-0906 fax e-mail: info@democracyctr.org Web site: http://www.democracyctr.org