[Rant] I want to talk about politics
So if that isn't your bag, wait for the next post, which should be coming soon. By the way, I've opened up the commenting so that anyone can comment, not just people registered on blogspot. Not that anyone really reads this.
The midterm elections are coming up in a couple weeks. I'm half a world away, and to be honest I haven't been following things too closely. I still think the Democrats are going to find a way to blow it and not gain control of either side of Capitol Hill (the House has been locked down via gerrymandering, and I just don't see them taking the Senate), but that isn't what this post is about.
I want to talk about campaign finance. Money is the engine of the political machine in America. And the gears. And the oil. We're just along for the ride. When most people hear the words 'campaign finance', the immediate reaction is usually a groan or a bewildered look, followed by a snide comment about greedy politicians. And why not? The campaign finance law in the U.S. are is as complicated as it is long. And it is very, very, long. It is long and complicated because having Congress draft campaign finance law is a little like having prisoners design their own cells. Congress may not be a bunch of crooks (mostly), but you'd have to be blind to not see the conflict of interest. After all, Washington D.C. has lobbyists by the truckful, who funnel enormous amounts of money to political parties and causes in order to influence the actions of government. For the corporations, unions, trade associations, etc. who make up these lobbies, lobbying is strategically worthwhile, as the pursuit of their extremely focused policy goals are considered unlikely to ruffle large waves of dissent among the disorganized masses. What has ruffled feathers, unsurprisingly, are the waves of corruption scandals that are being revealed, the most prominent name-drop being lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone: pork has long been part of the political vocabulary as a way to describe (essentially) legalized bribery or corruption.
The question then, is how do we fix it? One step toward a solution is simple, but implausible.
Outlaw all political contributions by non-voting entities.
I think the definitions of most of the terms are pretty clear. Non-voting entities means if this entitity (lobbyist organization, corporation, foriegner) is not able to register to vote within the United States, they are barred from making any sort of contributions (monetary donations, free services, etc etc etc.) to political parties, political candidates, or any organizations that they may own. Oh by the way, that kills anonymous political donating too. Since when are anonymous political donations conducive to transparency? Answer: they aren't.
It's simple, straightforward, and will never, ever get passed. But let's ignore that point for a minute. Let's look at what it could do.
This is not meant to address every problem with the American political system, but it is meant to address what I think is the most serious one: money. It is meant to be a starting point from which the current campaign finance tangle can be blown up and start anew. Quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can disagree with the basic principle. But I'm sure someone will find a way.
That's all I got. Regularly scheduled incoherency will return later this week. The month has been kind of out of control, so this blog has been neglected. Oops.
The midterm elections are coming up in a couple weeks. I'm half a world away, and to be honest I haven't been following things too closely. I still think the Democrats are going to find a way to blow it and not gain control of either side of Capitol Hill (the House has been locked down via gerrymandering, and I just don't see them taking the Senate), but that isn't what this post is about.
I want to talk about campaign finance. Money is the engine of the political machine in America. And the gears. And the oil. We're just along for the ride. When most people hear the words 'campaign finance', the immediate reaction is usually a groan or a bewildered look, followed by a snide comment about greedy politicians. And why not? The campaign finance law in the U.S. are is as complicated as it is long. And it is very, very, long. It is long and complicated because having Congress draft campaign finance law is a little like having prisoners design their own cells. Congress may not be a bunch of crooks (mostly), but you'd have to be blind to not see the conflict of interest. After all, Washington D.C. has lobbyists by the truckful, who funnel enormous amounts of money to political parties and causes in order to influence the actions of government. For the corporations, unions, trade associations, etc. who make up these lobbies, lobbying is strategically worthwhile, as the pursuit of their extremely focused policy goals are considered unlikely to ruffle large waves of dissent among the disorganized masses. What has ruffled feathers, unsurprisingly, are the waves of corruption scandals that are being revealed, the most prominent name-drop being lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone: pork has long been part of the political vocabulary as a way to describe (essentially) legalized bribery or corruption.
The question then, is how do we fix it? One step toward a solution is simple, but implausible.
Outlaw all political contributions by non-voting entities.
I think the definitions of most of the terms are pretty clear. Non-voting entities means if this entitity (lobbyist organization, corporation, foriegner) is not able to register to vote within the United States, they are barred from making any sort of contributions (monetary donations, free services, etc etc etc.) to political parties, political candidates, or any organizations that they may own. Oh by the way, that kills anonymous political donating too. Since when are anonymous political donations conducive to transparency? Answer: they aren't.
It's simple, straightforward, and will never, ever get passed. But let's ignore that point for a minute. Let's look at what it could do.
- Take the money out of politics
Okay. It won't completely take the money out. But it will slash the hell out of campaign budgets, hopefully allowing politicans to have platform statements that don't look like lobbyist press releases. The double whammy would be completed by putting a cap on individual political donations (remember, the only ones that would be allowed). Something nice and low, like $10,000 a year. Sure, campaign budgets will be smaller, but if you think that political campaigns are models of efficiency now, you're probably delusional. - Foster genuine political campaigns
For politicans, ascertaining the wants and needs of an unfocused population is an unquestionably difficult task. But by having to pander to the masses to fuel a campaign, and without a guiding lobbyist influence, one would hope political platforms would evolve to reflect more sincerely the candidate's policy visions. This not only returns more control of the campaign back to the candidate, but one would think that the majority of campaign time would now be spent trying to convince voters about the importance of issues. Also, if the amount of money required to run a campaign diminishes by a factor of 3 or 5, that would increase the amount of people able to run. Who knows, out of that talent pool might emerge better leaders than the ones we have now. It couldn't hurt. - Diffuse political influence
As trite as this may sound, the point of a democracy (or a republic, whatever) is to put the government at the service of the people. Not one person. People. So campaign finance laws on principle ought to ensure that political influence is not concentrated away from the people. So far they have failed in that respect. Shutting off the valve of undemocratic political influence is the first step in remedying the situation.
This is not meant to address every problem with the American political system, but it is meant to address what I think is the most serious one: money. It is meant to be a starting point from which the current campaign finance tangle can be blown up and start anew. Quite frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can disagree with the basic principle. But I'm sure someone will find a way.
That's all I got. Regularly scheduled incoherency will return later this week. The month has been kind of out of control, so this blog has been neglected. Oops.
posted by Keith at 4:23:00 AM
<< Home