Role of money in public elections

Quote from skiman : How is that risk different from the current system, aside from the fact that power is now sold to special interests, rather than to the the public?

See public sector unions as an example. See the states of New York and California, that now have huge, bloated governments. I hate crony capitalism as much as the next guy, but you are essentially guaranteeing government bloat by keeping private interest out of the government.

Quote from Xygonn : See public sector unions as an example. See the states of New York and California, that now have huge, bloated governments. I hate crony capitalism as much as the next guy, but you are essentially guaranteeing government bloat by keeping private interest out of the government.

How so? One claim does not follow from the other. Special interest money or cronyism does nothing to curb what you are subjectively calling bloat.

Quote from skiman : How so? One claim does not follow from the other. Special interest money or cronyism does nothing to curb what you are subjectively calling bloat.

Eh, as I have said before, it would be better if we got the government out of granting any special favors and out of anything that was not part of the original foundation of the federal government. If they can't grant favors, it's not worth it to lobby. If they can't bloat the government payrolls, and they can't give their friends taxpayer money, the whole thing gets a lot easier. The problem of corruption is that we have essentially handed the federal government our paychecks to do anything and everything, rather than those limited tasks a government is intended to accomplish. I don't see how making taxpayers pay for campaigns is going to fix anything.

Quote from Xygonn : Eh, as I have said before, it would be better if we got the government out of granting any special favors and out of anything that was not part of the original foundation of the federal government. If they can't grant favors, it's not worth it to lobby. If they can't bloat the government payrolls, and they can't give their friends taxpayer money, the whole thing gets a lot easier. The problem of corruption is that we have essentially handed the federal government our paychecks to do anything and everything, rather than those limited tasks a government is intended to accomplish. I don't see how making taxpayers pay for campaigns is going to fix anything.

So essentially you are saying that power corrupts, so the only way to remove corruption is to remove the power?

Citizens United, superpacs, union spending etc....

a disgusting perversion of the system the FF envisioned, I am certain.

Quote from Byebye : So essentially you are saying that power corrupts, so the only way to remove corruption is to remove the power?

Basically, yes.

Quote from Xygonn : Eh, as I have said before, it would be better if we got the government out of granting any special favors and out of anything that was not part of the original foundation of the federal government. If they can't grant favors, it's not worth it to lobby. If they can't bloat the government payrolls, and they can't give their friends taxpayer money, the whole thing gets a lot easier. The problem of corruption is that we have essentially handed the federal government our paychecks to do anything and everything, rather than those limited tasks a government is intended to accomplish. I don't see how making taxpayers pay for campaigns is going to fix anything.

To paraphrase your premise, the solution to influence peddling is to limit the influence of government.

For a couple of reasons, I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction.

The first reason is that that the government is going to do things,.buy things and spend money. Even if it's performing only basic functions, that's going to happen. And while it's not clear that less government activity means better government, even if it were, we would be changing the shape of the problem rather than addressing the problem itself. Cutting the supply of influence raises the purchase price and may only further consolidate the influence of big money.

The second, and I think more important reason that this is coming at the problem from the wrong direction is that government purchasing - cronyism- is but a small part of what's at stake. We're talking about shaping the character of a nation in every regard, from individual liberty to civil liberty to defense and war. While I don't want political contributions to determine what kind of jets the Pentagon buys, I REALLY don't want political contributions to determine environmental policy or foreign policy.

Rather than tackling the problem obliquely, why not tackle it head on? Why not just eliminate the marketplace for influence.Let candidates and ideas compete on a level playing field rather than the landscape created for and by special interests. Let the Ron Pauls and Dennis Kuciniches make their cases to the people.without being shouted down by monied interests that do not want the public to even consider change from the status quo. Let those little gnomes rant. It's good for public discourse!

A commercial system represents commercial interests. If we want a government by and for the people, the people are going to have to pay for the political directly. It's "cheaper" than having special interests reimbursed from our tax contributions and we also have a government answerable to the people.

As an FYI for anyone interested, there is a very good episode of This American Life [thisamericanlife.org] that touches on some of these topics. There's a striking interview with John McCain and Russ Feingold. It's one of those moments in which we can remember that politicians are just people with good intentions rather than strategic sound bite machines.


EDIT: I want to be clear that I understand that you are in favor of smaller government, but IMO that is a separate matter altogether. One problem can be solved or mitigated without the other. They aren't intrinsically linked.

Quote from skiman : It's only fruitless if you refuse to allow it to bear fruit. Back to the original topic, like any product, politicians are packaged and sold. Marketing in used to create a perception of quality that is often very different from actual quality. Perhaps even more relevant to politics is casting aspersions on competitor quality, something that's better restrained in consumer marketing. In general, it's cheaper and easier to destroy perception of opponent quality than to create perception of candidate quality. With the relatively short campaign process, the marketing budget is a huge factor in determining outcome. At this point I'm comfortable saying that it's a huge factor in most political races. It matters in a presidential campaign, but at that point it's two heavyweight bank accounts trading blows. Where it really matters is in smaller races, such as those for congressional districts. With the smaller budgets in these races, monied organizations can almost literally pick winners and losers. If the PAC's preferred candidate is trailing two weeks before the election it's a simple matter to spike the opponent. Just saturate the local media with a negative ad buy that might be 15x the opponent's ad budget. The ads don't have to be true, just pervasive. There's not even time or budget to respond. Swinging the needle 5 or 10 points isn't unrealistic. The whole business is toxic to the notion of representative government. It becomes representative not of the voters, but of special interests.

I completely agree that politics is toxic. I hardly think it's a simple as 'spend a bunch of cash and go negative against your opponent though. If that were the case, that's all we would ever see on TV.

Seems like most negative ads I've seen come from less reputable PACs rather than the candidates themselves. I guess I buy into the whole "The consumer is too stupid to see through the marketing" gambit. When I, and people I know, buy something of value (or vote) we do our research.

Quote from skiman : EDIT: I want to be clear that I understand that you are in favor of smaller government, but IMO that is a separate matter altogether. One problem can be solved or mitigated without the other. They aren't intrinsically linked.

I would disagree with this.

If you don't make it unprofitable to donate to politicians, they will find ways around it (even if they have to resolve to using black market dealings).

It's akin to saying, "We want the selling of drugs on our streets to stop, so we'll make it illegal. Making it illegal will stop transaction for illegal drugs on our street corners, thereby stopping the violence associated with it."

In reality, it is still profitable for people to sell illegal drugs and they find ways to do it.

If you want to stop people from selling drugs for profit you need to make it not profitable. Similarly, if it's profitable to donate money to politicians, the way to stop it is to make it unprofitable. Making it illegal will only increase the number of illegal events in our society.

Quote from Danman114 : I would disagree with this. If you don't make it unprofitable to donate to politicians, they will find ways around it (even if they have to resolve to using black market dealings). It's akin to saying, "We want the selling of drugs on our streets to stop, so we'll make it illegal. Making it illegal will stop transaction for illegal drugs on our street corners, thereby stopping the violence associated with it." In reality, it is still profitable for people to sell illegal drugs and they find ways to do it. If you want to stop people from selling drugs for profit you need to make it not profitable. Similarly, if it's profitable to donate money to politicians, the way to stop it is to make it unprofitable. Making it illegal will only increase the number of illegal events in our society.

1. It's possible to increase the number of illegal events while decreasing the total number of undesirable events. In other words, laws can and do work to influence behavior.

2. Unless we are to embrace anarchy, there will always be a government. Having fewer favors to "sell" without addressing the selling itself likely means higher prices and even more exclusive control for monied interests.

3. None of this addresses the fact that there proposed problems are distinct from one another. We can address the influence of special interests regardless of the size of government, which was the point I made earlier.

Quote from skiman : 1. It's possible to increase the number of illegal events while decreasing the total number of undesirable events. In other words, laws can and do work to influence behavior.

You might reduce it, but to gage the effectiveness you'd also have to look at who you are regulating here. Politicians selling tax dollars for political donations. Not exactly the type who will turn around and say, "Oh Gee, you DON'T want me doing that? I'll stop right away good sirs." I think I'd rather roll the dice with drug dealers.

Quote from skiman : 2. Unless we are to embrace anarchy, there will always be a government. Having fewer favors to "sell" without addressing the selling itself likely means higher prices and even more exclusive control for monied interests.

I don't advocate anarchy or no government, I just don't want it to be profitable for a company to make political donations.

Quote from skiman : 3. None of this addresses the fact that there proposed problems are distinct from one another. We can address the influence of special interests regardless of the size of government, which was the point I made earlier.

But the question is how effective would it be. I'd wager taking the money out of government would be the most effective way of taking the money out of politics.

Quote from Danman114 : But the question is how effective would it be. I'd wager taking the money out of government would be the most effective way of taking the money out of politics.

Again, it's not an "or" proposition. Regardless of what one believes the size of government should be, we should be able to agree that taking money out of politics is worthwhile.

If a politician need only rely on the public for a shot at election, he or she is accountable only to the public. He or she would at least be free to make votes of conscience without worrying about some interest financing the next campaign. He or she need only worry about the public.

The problem isn't the money in politics in my opinion. The problem is districting.

Quote from Danman114 : I want neither. Academics will fail because they lack the real world experience in the markets, and they will see the government as the guide to the economy. With experienced businessmen you run the risk of them treating government like a business, leading to it getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

Academics fail because they're not very good politicians. Businessmen are generally MUCH better politicians given that it's a practical necessity for the job.