Dave Weigel reports on the inauguration of Larry Lessig's Change Congress Campaign:
The most interesting part, so far, has been Lessig's argument to conservatives for why we need public financing. First, the idea he semi-endorsed is not full public campaign finance. It is public financing for incumbents, an idea he credits to Paul Begala and James Carville. Incumbents would be prohibited from raising any money, at all, period. Their funds will come from the U.S. Treasury and be a function of how much their opponents raise. If Challenger Jones raises $1 million, Congressman Smith gets a check for $800,000.
Why should conservatives and libertarians support this, given that Lessig accepts a $2 billion estimate of the cost? "Why is government so big?" Lessig asks, rhetorically. "Because Congressmen must get elected. The insidious relationship between the desire to regulate and the need for congressmen to get re-elected drives the expansion of government." Compare that $2 billion cost, Lessig suggests, to a radically shrunken (and less busy) FEC and the diminishment of loopholes and handouts.
Lessig quotes Ronald Reagan on how people vote themselves benefits from the treasury. Lessig agrees with the argument, but not the reasoning. "The problem we face is the problem of crony capitalism. Not wealth pumped down, but wealth pumped up."
This actually doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. It won't keep the money out of politics--campaign finance laws are as rocks in the stream to the money sloshing around Washington. But it might, at least, keep incumbents from spending 50% of their time trying to raise money for the next race. And it would erode the massive advantage that incumbents usually have in direct fundraising.
It will not, however, much reduce the size of government. Almost all of the money that government spends goes to entitlements, defense, or interest on the national debt, all of which are extremely popular programs. Earmarks tend to be aimed at impressing a state's voters, not its plutocrats. And regulations are as often enacted at the behest of angry but poor activist groups as of rich lobbyists.
Indeed, one thing that might worry conservatives is that this would work. That would leave activist group power--which tends to rest on their mailing list--intact, while eliminating the countervailing force from industry. I'm not siding with business here--I don't like the business lobbies any better than anyone else. But they do provide a check on activist groups which, left to their own devices, would ignore the practical questions about the consequences of their programs.
interest on the national debt, all of which are extremely popular programs.
One would hope that paying the interest on the debt would be popular. I imagine the consequences of NOT paying it would be interesting. And unpopular.
Conservatives are interested in term limits when it would benefit them. Remember how they pushed them in the 90s? It is a bad idea, because we have a professional legislature where experience is important in crafting legislation. Of course when the conservatives ran the show where was the term limits? Or the balanced budget amendment for that matter?
Want to really change how money effects elections? Here's how: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elections.html .
Not that it doesn't happen in an indirect fashion anyway, but the idea that a portion of my tax dollars would be going directly to a bunch of politicians that I hate for the express purpose of helping them to stay in office makes me nauseous.
If there's going to be public financing, it needs to be available in equal amounts for both the incumbent AND any credible challenger, even if they are representing a third party. This however brings the challenge of making the bar for financing low enough so the Democrats and Republicans can't shut out the Libertarians and Greens, while keeping out every random who wants to throw their hat in the ring but couldn't get ten votes come election time.
If you want to do democracy a favor, though, I think you would get a lot further with some sort of media reform than you would with some sort of finance reform. It would make a hell of a lot more difference to make sure all candidates get the same amount of media time, rather than the same amount of money.
Megan,
First your take on Obama's speech, and now this?
"Incumbents would be prohibited from raising any money, at all, period."
Would that apply to their spouses, too? What if they want to spend their own moolah? Or Bill's? Are you going to make that illegal?
How the hell you gonna get THAT by the Supremes? I can't spend my moolah in any manner I desire?
This is a bad idea.
Recall the law of Unintended Consequences.
I was thinking on this very issue the other night, and brainstormed a dozen ways that would be better methods.
Marcus
I'm not at all clear on the gains here. What you're saying is that incumbents get a limited amount of money for their campaigns, but that challengers get unlimited money with which to compete.
If I had to predict, I'd predict that would mean a lot of one-term congresspeople with extremely poor approval.
The idea, as I read it, is that the incumbents get 80% of whatever the challenger manages to raise. So the funding arms race would be basically fruitless.
Charlie, that sounds exactly like what most Members deserve.
"activist groups which, left to their own devices, would ignore the practical questions about the consequences of their programs."
I think this misrepresents. Activist groups of all stripes obviously have very practical aims.
They may "ignore [...] questions about the consequences of their programs," but calling one group "practical" and the other "impractical" doesn't accurately put across what's going on.
Megan,
Earmarks are NOT used to impress a politician's voters. In fact, the vast majority of voters are repulsed by pork projects. The dirty little secret about earmarks is that they are used to curry favor with campaign contributors and political kingmakers. In many instances, earmarks are even used to directly enrich politicians, their friends, and their families.
"I'm not siding with business here--I don't like the business lobbies any better than anyone else. But they do provide a check on activist groups which, left to their own devices, would ignore the practical questions about the consequences of their programs."
You are, however, making the assumption that lobbyists for industry are more truthful/unbiased/accurate/etc. in their policy advocacy with congresscritters than are non-industry lobbyists. I am _highly_ dubious of that.
So if I am strongly opposed to the incumbant congressman in my district and donate $1000 to his opponent (for the purposes of explaining how awful the incumbant is), I'd also be causing $800 of tax money to be given to the incumbant I despise?
And if I like the incumbant, I'm completely forbidden to donate my money to help him get his message out?
Both scenarios strike me as major infringments on free speech. It's as if donations to Planned Parenthood were banned, but every donation to NARAL were matched with an 80% contribution from the public treasury to PP.
No, NARAL is a pro-choice group. I was thinking of the National Right to Life Committee.
You are, however, making the assumption that lobbyists for industry are more truthful/unbiased/accurate/etc. in their policy advocacy with congresscritters than are non-industry lobbyists. I am _highly_ dubious of that.
Not necessarily, any more than a defense lawyer must be more truthful/unbiased/accurate/etc than the prosecutor for the adversarial system of justice to work.
The vast majority of voters are repulsed by pork projects.
No. The majority of voters are repulsed by other people's pork projects. They don't like the idea of pork, but they love it when their town gets the three mile long interstate, or Woodstock museum or other goodies, and they can force the tax payers of the entire rest of the country to chip in. Suddenly you hear: "Well this is different. This is important!"
Megan,
Why do politicians raise money? Because they can. Why do people give them money? Because they can curry favor.
If we give politicians tax subsidies and prevent them from raising money, they'll just find another way to give favors and get paid off. You can't stop this kind of institutionalized corruption with simple public financing, the greed is too deeply entrenched.
Besides, who's going to enact the law? That's right, only Congress can do that -- see Article I of the Constitution where it says that they are in charge of their own rules. Which means that they would only enact this law if they themselves stand to gain from it.
Case closed. Forget this very, very silly idea of limited public financing of scummy pols.