Comments on: Game Over for Campaign Finance Reform?

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:51:42 +0000

I think it is somewhat revealing that, from Pew’s original astroturfing of campaign ‘reform’, to the above backhanded acknowlegements of the unpopularity of public financing, (Look at how few make that check off, even when it costs them nothing!) that this ‘reform’ is something that has to be shoved down the peoples’ throat whether we like it or not.

You people are the essential “useful idiots” in a drive by incumbant office holders to silence critics and fatally handicap challengers. It’s simply amazing how resistant you are to recognizing the fundamental, inescapable, conflict of interest inherent in allowing officeholders in a democracy to regulate what may be said in an effort to unseat them.

“Congress shall make no law”; As the expression goes, what part of “no law” don’t you understand? Apparently the “no” part…

By: M. Bloomberg

M. Bloomberg — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:42:20 +0000

I never understand pro-campaign finance partisans. Even with campaign finance regulations in place, one rich guy can dominate the field by funding himself. Rather, with campaign finance regulations in place, rich guys have an unnatural advantage, because the people cannot combine in corporate entities or unions to raise money and have voice. Ok, you say, but how many neighborhoods make a corporation with each neighbor as a shareholder? The reality is different than theory. Fine: then the bottom-line is that either way, there are rich guys out there on the left and rich guys out there on the right. Instead of complaining about campaign finance, just get Warren Buffett or Bill Gates or George Soros to run for office. Or, say, Al Franken. But all this talk of repealing the First Amendment and regulations that infringe on free speech is downright anti-democratic.

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:35:40 +0000

“even if the ads are close to hard core efforts to influence election outcomes.”

I guess I’m supposed to be alarmed by that prospect but strangely I’m not – even though I realize a crazed Michael Bloomberg-type could go on a spending spree. Anyway, I find it somewhat amusing that the Supreme Court is being criticized here for not respecting a 4 year-old precedent while at the same time noting ominously the (unfair) restraints imposed by a 30 year old precedent.

By: AYY

AYY — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:13:16 +0000

“Even more Swift Boating. . . ” (Sigh) Not sure what you think “Swift Boating” means, but it does not have a negative connotation. Perhaps you are thinking of Dan Rather.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:55:13 +0000

BR: I would like to think that a possibility. My suspicion is that private interests will eventually swamp whatever public funding is raised. That’s why I hope that the system of taxation of donations mentioned in the Gamage article cited in my comment above gets implemented; the only way to be sure that public funding is reasonably proportional to private funding is to tax private funding in order to pay for public funding.

By: BR

BR — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:17:22 +0000

Public financing of campaigns seems the most sensible remaining option for reformers. The idea would be to swamp the value of private campaign contributions (without barring them, and thus raising these constitutional problems)by giving campaigners enough funds to do everything they need to do to put together a competitive campaign for the relevant office. The cost would be so much smaller than the cost society pays in government benefits handed out as return favors for private campaign contributors, it would be a very good investment. The public recognizes that guys like Perot or Bloomberg are less beholden to campaign contributors because they can afford to fund their own campaigns — the idea is that candidates should be able to fund their own campaigns generally with public financing. This idea did actually seem to work pretty well for presidential elections for a brief period after Watergate, but the public financing has not kept up with the costs, and its need to be extended to Congress and state and local offices.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:29:30 +0000

Given what Levinson has written about our broken constitution, I doubt an amendment would go through…there are just too many vested interests who can get 25% of the states to adhere to the status quo.

So that’s why I focus on the move from process to substance: find the issues and candidates you care about and campaign for them.

But I was remiss not to mention the one practical way out of this mess that I now see: David Gamage’s proposal on taxing contributions to pay for public funding:

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/113-6/GamageFINAL.pdf

This idea of taxing tiering of advocacy is analogous to the ideas I lay out here, and which Volokh appears to concede as potential hedges on his “right of medical self defense”:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/11/notes_on_medica.html

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:16:33 +0000

So when do we start talking amendment? As much as I hate the idea of tinkering with the First, this situation is so intolerable that it has to be considered.