|
Back
Campaign
Financing: Rigid Rules Reduce Rottennes
Published Saturday,
May 10, 1997
Why dont we
take a look at our national embarrassment, our totally corrupt system
of federal election campaign financing?
Both Newt Gingrichs and Bill Clintons recent troubles come
from raising money to get elected. One would suspect that practically
every Senator and Representative has contribution skeletons in the closet.
Our legislators may argue that theyre not in the pockets of Big
Tobacco, the unions, defense contractors or the NRA, but that insults
our intelligence. Theres no such thing as a free lunch, and
representatives know that when contributors pay something, they expect
to get something.
If a spy gives a defense worker $100,000, thats treason. If
a construction contractor gives a mayor $10,000, thats a bribe.
But if Gallo gives $750,000 to the Democrats and $750,000 to the Republicans,
thats the American Political Process. And somehow we believe
Gallo has no self-interest! I suspect theres something wrong
with taking big lumps of money from a small number of contributors.
Now, politicians will say two things to us, and theyre both insults.
First, It takes a lot of money to get elected. Of course
it does, and the use of the money is offensive. Most of the money
is used to pay for non-information TV spots broadcast to gullible voters.
Its hard to feel sympathy for politicians who spend millions to
peddle themselves like cornflakes, tell half-truths about themselves,
tell lies about their opponents, and generally hammer the voters with
distortions.
Second, I have to spend a lot of time raising money.
Frankly, Im not interested in a legislators excuses why he/she
cant spend more time on the job, or his plan for perpetuating his
time in Washington. Besides, it only takes a few contributions from
special interests. Republican Party officials will tell you that
they have enormous support from the grass roots, but thats true
only insofar as the number of checks. The percentage of dollars
from the grass roots is a trifle.
Theres solution. I propose to regulate campaign financing
big-time, with real rules, not the wimpy loophole-filled stuff weve
had in the past.
This is appropriate, because elections are absolutely vital to our way
of life. Besides, lawmakers regulate us all the time. If they
want to posture about a problem without solving it, or maybe raise a little
money, they pass a law.
There are only two rules:
First, no more fundraising. Not a cent. No hard money to candidates; no
soft money to parties. I propose it be a felony to offer money to
a candidate. This will save legislators an enormous amount of time.
It will eliminate our representatives kissing up to corporate contributors
or lining up like puppets behind party leadership despite the dictates
of conscience.
Second, we, the people, will give each of you, exactly the same amount
of money to run for office. Go spend it on what you want, but be
prepared to account for it -- and you have to give the unused part back.
This will put third and fourth party candidates on the map. This
may even help the candidate who runs as a fiscal conservative.
Lets see if he or she blows the whole wad.
Heres the math for funding federal elections. Assume it takes
about $100 million to campaign for the office of president, about $20
million for senator, and a stingy $2 million for representative.
Assume there are four viable candidates for each office. Give them
the money. That means it costs us only $3.48 billion for the House,
$8 billion for the Senate, and a mere $400 million for the Presidency.
This $11.88 billion is cheap, compared to just about every program in
government. Further, these costs dont come up every year,
so this is a real bargain.
This large amount of money allows the candidate to buy lots of TV time.
I dont rely on Westinghouse, Time-Warner or ABC Capitol Cities to
give away time, even though the public owns the airwaves. There
is no restraint on free speech, although for this amount of money, youd
think the public deserves at least one mandatory debate -- with the time
donated by the networks.
The chances these changes becoming reality? Well, since they would
be have to be implemented by politicians, Id say the chances were
fat, slim, and none.
Barry Schoenborn is a technical writer, and a ten-year resident of
Nevada County. You can write to him at barry@wvswrite.com. The opinions
of columnists are not necessarily those of The Union.
Back
|