by David Cocke
If there is one category of legislation that is sure to spark citizen support and incumbent skepticism, it is campaign financing reform. After all, who could be against it except the incumbents elected under the existing system or the television stations and election consultants who feed off it? But before we attempt a diagnosis, it would be a good idea to check out the proposed cures as well as the perceived disease.
Most public-spirited citizens would prefer a system of financing elections that is cheaper, creates fewer conflicts of interest for elected officials, and is less subject to abuse and corruption.
The problem is escalating in three ways.
First and foremost are the rising costs of conducting an election (particularly those relating to television), together with related costs for polling and media consultants.
Second, in many areas of the country (including, increasingly, our own), a rough parity between the two major political parties has increased the number of hard-fought and expensive campaigns.
Third, there has been increased skepticism about the role of the major parties and, as a consequence of that, a growing number of voters who think of themselves as independent of party direction and who -- for better and for worse -- are more likely to be affected by expensive commercials.
As a result, the election cycles never seem to end. Increasingly, the race for the presidency seems to begin the day the last election is over. And, frankly, many politicians seem to spend their entire political careers raising money for the next election -- meanwhile neglecting the work they were hired to do.
On the other side of the political equation are the fund-raisers and lobbyists for special interests, all vying for legislators' attention. But the value of their coin has been deflated, ironically, by too much inflation of their numbers. (These days, there are no fewer than 30 registered lobbyists in Washington for every congressman -- a fact which puts the politicians, not the lobbyists, in control of the relationship.) The two major campaign-finance reforms that have been most discussed involve (a) limiting the amount of money that can be given to candidates or spent by them; and (b) public financing. Both approaches have their flaws.
Restricting money for campaigns limits the resources that might otherwise educate the public about the candidate's ideas. Such a remedy would favor incumbents and the political insiders who have their ear.
Restricting the contributions of Political Action Committees would also limit public access to the candidate. PAC contributions are one way (and maybe the only effective way) that individuals and smaller organizations can pool their resources to match the influence of larger givers.
Restricting campaign contributions also has the effect of driving campaign money and expenditures underground to so-called "soft money" committees and campaigns -- those all-purpose party fronts where accountability is diminished, negative campaigning is encouraged, and conflicts of interest can be disguised.
Public financing of campaigns is a tempting alternative. It allows non-incumbents a more level playing field and puts the costs of educating the public on the public's shoulders rather than on those of special interests. But it, too, has its drawbacks. How can you fairly limit the funds to candidates and parties with real and demonstrable constituencies? And how, legally, would you distinguish those from the freaks, con men, princely pretenders, and other nuisances who'd be happy to launch irrelevant careers at public expense?
The fact is that voting citizens, just like television viewers, have to learn to be intelligent consumers. Various other countries provide both government TV and publicly financed elections. But most of us would surely prefer to take our chances with the open market. In the case of either the politician or the sitcom, we'd rather have our own fingers on the on-off button.
(David Cocke is vice chairman of the Shelby County Democratic party.)