Centerfield

Technically there is no rule, I believe, that stops the majority party from appointing who they want to Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, Whip, etc. It does not have to be a Member of Congress. However, I think Armstrong should run against Governor Kinky Friedman, who will be laughed out of office by 2010. You want a dramatic appointment for Majority Leader? How 'bout Congressman Joe Schwarz.

Here is my dramatic proposal:

A Constitutional Amendment that institutes public campaign financing.

Before you lawyers jump all over it's constitutionality, which I think is a stupid argument BTW (the court's are wrong), keep in mind the words: "Constitutional amendment."

Let's have this freaking debate... You all know deep down that if a proposeal were made to the general public to create a campaign finance system that excluded all special interests, eliminated PAC's and 527's, limited the time candidates could campaign as well as money they could spend, required debates, and allocated telivision time equally, it would have at least a 70% approval rating.

Now, tear that apart with all your facts and legal jargon.

Posted by: Mathew at January 9, 2006 03:34 PM

Well, since you asked...

The problem is that IT WON'T WORK. We have a very stringent set of campaign finance laws now, thanks to Senators McCain and Feingold. How well have they worked?

What's that? You say they haven't worked very well? That's because one man's "special interest" is another man's voice of the common man. The monied interests (be they "big business" or George Soros or Greenpeace) will always have sufficient lawyers to find the loopholes to allow them to do what they want to do. You can't keep money out of politics. It won't work. Whether the candidates spend it themselves or whether citizens join together, pool their money, and speak as their surrogates or attack dogs, the money will find a way to influence the elections.

Do you really want to make it a crime for a group of independent citizens who feel very strongly about an issue to work together to influence public policy through the electoral process?

I am 100%, unalterably opposed to tinkering with the First Amendment.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 9, 2006 03:54 PM

Considering the constant purchasing of politicians I'd be willing to give some variation of public funding a try.

On the other hand, we could just go in the other direction and start auctioning congressmen on ebay.
At least there would be a public record about who owns who.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 9, 2006 03:58 PM

Mathew's right, as a strictly textual matter, there is no requirement for the officers of the House to be members of the House. However, while the Speaker would automatically get floor priveleges under the current rules, a majority leader who wasn't a member would not. So they would have to appoint someone who already had floor priveleges (a former rep, for example) or amend the rules.

Perhaps this be the avenue for Newt's comeback? ;)

Posted by: Simon at January 9, 2006 04:19 PM

Public financing of campaigns hardly needs a Constitional amendment. We already have a system in place to finance presidential campaigns.

There is no Constitutional right to give money to a candidate. The First Amendment comes into play when independent advocacy groups want to speak. Let them. The problem is preventing the candidate from directing the "independent" advocate -- if the tobacco lobby wants to run a $10 million ad campaign for Candidate X, how do you stop them?

Posted by: Oberon at January 9, 2006 04:20 PM

Actualy I think we should do half of Oberons campaign finance proposal. I've done a 180 on limiting money that can be given to candidates or advocacy adds run. Origionaly I was all for it....but after seeing the practical effects and realiazing that (in practical terms) it puts limitations on just the kind of political speech that the 1st Ammendment was intended to protect, I've changed my mind. I was wrong about that.

However, I do strongly support better and more equitable public (i.e. FEC) funding of elections. I think we should dramaticaly increase the amount of public funds and public resources devoted to holding elections. It wouldn't be a total solution to the problem.... but at least it wouldn't mean that candidates were entirely dependant on private contributions (and therefore interests) to get thier name and thier message out. Furthermore, I think rather then dolling out money based upon how the candidates party did in the previous election, every candidate that gets enough signatures to get thier name on the ballot for the election should get an EQUAL allocation of funds.... regardless of what party (if any) they belong to or how that party did in the last election cycle (if it even existed). Furthermore, I think the government should do more in terms of using public resources to make information about the election and the candidates available. The Internet is a great tool for that and alot more could be done with it.... but also as part of thier FCC license requirements, broadcast stations should be required to devote a certain amount of thier programing hours to election coverage (debates, etc) - for free.... just like they are required to participate in the Emergency Broadcast System.

Posted by: cengel at January 9, 2006 04:45 PM

Oberon,
I think both Pat and I have addressed ourselves to the first amendment and campaign finance questions quite expansively in the recent past. Refer to comments here and here.

Posted by: Simon at January 9, 2006 04:56 PM

What's that? You say they haven't worked very well?

You are right. It doesn't work, by McCain and Feingold's own admittance, the lawyer's have twisted the law and created loopholes. We need to go further.

Do you really want to make it a crime for a group of independent citizens who feel very strongly about an issue to work together to influence public policy through the electoral process?

No, I want to make it so those group of citizens don't have more of a say because their wallet is bigger. I am not proposing we stop anyone from voting, putting up yard signs, going door to door, things you can actually relate to "speech" protected by the First amendment.

I am 100%, unalterably opposed to tinkering with the First Amendment.

Who isn't?

Public financing of campaigns hardly needs a Constitional amendment. We already have a system in place to finance presidential campaigns.

There is no Constitutional right to give money to a candidate.

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Oberon.

The problem is preventing the candidate from directing the "independent" advocate -- if the tobacco lobby wants to run a $10 million ad campaign for Candidate X, how do you stop them?

Make it illegal.

Is that pie in the sky? Sure it is. Are there bumps in the road? Of course there are. Is it out of the realm of possibilities?

Look folks, let me direct you down a different road. This is a systemic problem. It isn't a Republican problem, or a Democrat problem, or even Tom Delay's problem, the system is corrupt, broken, it doesn't work. As long as money exists to the level it does, and is funneled to candidates the way it currently is, we always have two sides taking extreme positions for a buck, a largely apothetic public, and political corruption. When in modern times has this not been the case? When is the last time Congress had positive approval ratings? The government clearly doesn't represent a large majority of the electorate... Those of us who don't subscribe fully to the ideals of any special interest, who like guns but don't want our child to be able to purchase a Mac-10, who don't like abortion but don't want to see it outlawed, who want blue collar workers to have the right to unionize but don't think an electrician in NYC should make $80 an hour... You know, the majority of the American public. If there is anything that the public should own out right, shouldn't it be the democratic process?

If not public financing, than what? Is anybody truly satisfied with the way things are? Beyond doing nothing, making government so small that there are no favors to give, or full disclosure, what else could be done?

Posted by: Mathew at January 9, 2006 05:04 PM

Actualy I think we should do half of Oberons campaign finance proposal. I've done a 180 on limiting money that can be given to candidates or advocacy adds run. Origionaly I was all for it....but after seeing the practical effects and realiazing that (in practical terms) it puts limitations on just the kind of political speech that the 1st Ammendment was intended to protect, I've changed my mind. I was wrong about that.

I'd like to hear more about that.

Good comment, overall.

Posted by: Mathew at January 9, 2006 05:10 PM

You are right. It doesn't work, by McCain and Feingold's own admittance, the lawyer's have twisted the law and created loopholes. We need to go further.

Isn't there something of a failure of logic here? It doesn't work, therefore we need to go further. Isn't it at least as plausible to look at the failure of BCRA and say that "it doesn't work, period," rather than "it doesn't work because it didn't go far enough"? This all sounds familiar, to anyone who has spent time debating with socialists (I mean, like actual socialists, i.e. not anyone in real American politics), who claim that the problem is that Communism has simply never been done properly, that the Soviet Union wasn't really a Communist nation, and that its failure means we should try again and do it right, rather than simply accept that its failure was inherent within its starting outlook and give it up for dead.

When a policy has failed (and a fortiori when that policy is of highly dubious Constitutionality), perhaps the best response is not simply to demand more of the same.

Posted by: Simon at January 9, 2006 05:28 PM

The government clearly doesn't represent a large majority of the electorate

It seems to me that the government represents the majority of those who can be bothered to vote and who have the presence of mind to mark their ballots for their preferred candidates.

I would also point out that it wouldn't hurt to scale back the scope of Federal power to something more congruent with the actual, Constitutional powers of the Congress - a matter that Mathew breezes past just a mite too hastily. This will not solve the problem of corruption, but it may help; if nothing else, it will have the virtue of bringing us closer in line with the Constitution, while more campaign finance reform will not only not work any better than the current lot, but will take us even further down the road to evisceration of the first amendment.

Posted by: Simon at January 9, 2006 05:40 PM

What Simon said.

You say I can put up yard signs? Oh, boy... so the only people I can influence in the national election are my neighbors. Your amendment would take away my ability to try to deliver my message to large numbers of people at once... unless, I suppose, if I could trick reporters into covering it.

If enough workers want to contribute to some PAC or other entity to buy national ads saying why they think a policy or a candidate is bad for their interests, I believe it is their absolute right to do so. Likewise with groups of like-minded conservatives or environmentalists or libertarians or businesses or whomever. I don't care whether I agree with what they have to say or not, or whether they are making their point stupidly or whether their proposals would benefit only them and harm all other Americans. It is their right as Americans to say what they want and to peaceably assemble (electronically, financially, or otherwise) to petition their government for redress of grievances.

Their WILL BE national communications. Period. Somebody's going to make them. Campaign finance laws control who gets to have a voice. If you slap everybody down hard, then only the news media will have the right to deliver mass messages. They will be the gatekeeper. And then we will have fights over whether Mr. Sinclair is a news media or a corporate shill pumping for a particular candidate. And the FEC will get to decide what programs a privately owned TV station can air during a campaign.

Or if you limit your regulations to just groups, then George Soros or Bill Gates can spend their money however they want, buying whatever ads they want. Or would you prohibit them from buying commercials, too? Or do they get more speech because they are individuals with loads of money, and I can only shout as loud as they do if I join together with others?

Loopholes are not an accidental problem because McCain and Feingold overlooked a couple of things or those evil lawyers got to working... they are INHERENT in any such system of regulation.

The answer to problems of speech is always more speech, never more regulation.

Cengel's proposals are acceptable, though they have potential problems of their own.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 9, 2006 05:44 PM

What if the Sierra Club decides to run its own news program? On their own cable channel? Are they allowed to do that, presenting the news with their own spin? "Candidate Joe Democrat today announced his support for world tree-hugging day. Candidate Tom Republican refused to comment, leaving some observers to conclude that he wanted to run over the Lorax with a bulldozer." If not, how do you distinguish between them and the 20/20 or 48 Hours?

What if the NRA puts out its own newspaper, offering free subscriptions to anyone who wants one? Maybe mailing them for free to the entire country... "Candidate Billy Knee-Jerk Toady announced his desire to confiscate all guns from hardworking Americans. Candidate John "Cold Dead Hands" Righty replied that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that anybody who wanted to confiscate his Smith & Wesson should be taken out and shot."

Again, how would you distinguish them from a "real" newspaper or TV news program?

Mathew, your proposal would give me more rights to buy TV time to advertise Salad Shooters (TM) than to buy time to express my (and my fellows') opinions about vital national issues. That's not right.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 9, 2006 05:59 PM

I feel for Mathews proposal. However, how much of this scandal is due to campaign contributions nad how much is due to groups seeking to influence legislation?

In other words, if we ended all contributions, would that really end the lobbyists' power? With the way DC is set up now, I am sure that they would find a way to work around it.

Witness the explosion of 527's in the last election after the McCain/Feingold campaign "reform" bill.

Posted by: Donald at January 10, 2006 01:35 AM

Pat,

You said it way more eloquently then I ever could. You are exactly right on this. Origionaly I was a big supporter of Campaign Finance Reform.... but I eventualy came to the realization that I was 100% wrong on it.... not an easy thing to admit to oneself. The influence of money in politics is a big problem in the country today, no doubt about it...and addressing that problem was the goal Campaign Finance Reform was targeted at, a noble goal (IMO).... but the proposed solution of restricting the political speech of Americans is a cure FAR more onerous and dangerous then the origional disease could ever hope to be.

Posted by: cengel at January 10, 2006 12:51 PM

could. You are exactly right on this. Origionaly I was a big supporter of Campaign Finance Reform.... but I eventualy came to the realization that I was 100% wrong on it.... not an easy thing to admit to oneself.

I'm another one who was in that camp. Let's face it, it sounded great--"Take the money out of politics!" How could we not be for it? But, much like any other legislation, it had holes--one which proved to be very gaping.

For those who know, how does it work in other countries--Canada, Britain, etc? Are campaigns publicly financed? It seems as if that would put everyone on a level playing field. Just curious about how other respected democracies handle this.

Let's face it, our system currently caters to three types of individuals: 1) The Chamber of Commerce glad hander who uses their business networking accumen to rake in the dough from business' who want their interests protected; 2) The fire stoker who exploits an issue (abortion, race relations, gay marriage) to scare the devout (right and left) into throwing money their way; and 3) The independently wealthy who are willing to stroke a check for seed money. Somewhere along the way, many--particularly in the first group--have to sell their soul for future advancement. Those in the second just gravitate towards the extreme when funds are depleted.

It's made for a pretty sad state of affairs to be honest. Our half of US Senators are millionaires, with the House not a whole lot different. Of course there's nothing wrong with being a millionaire, but it's certainly not common in the populace at large. Why don't more middle class Americans run for higher office? Money, money, money. Plain and simple. How do we solve that problem? (If you even consider it a problem.)

Posted by: AR at January 10, 2006 03:21 PM

We have rarely if ever in our history had a Congress made up primarily of Cincinnatuses who were pressed into service unwillingly and then returned to the humble farm life from which they came. We look back at history with severe blinders. Read Mark Twain and you will see that yesterday's politicans were no better than today's.

Personally, I see a loose correlation between the beginning of serious campaign finance reform in the 1970s and the increased partisanship and demagoguery we feel we are experiencing today. I'd kind of like to try an experiment whereby we lifted the individual contribution limits imposed today. Let rich people contribute as much as they want, directly to the candidate's campaign.

We might wind up with candidates who are beholden to one or two fat cats, but willing and able to vote their consciences on anything not directly affecting those fat cats. And those fat cats might have some feelings of social responsibility themselves. Today, the going rate for a letter from your friendly neighborhood Congressmen (like many of the letters written by Congressmen at the behest of Abramoff) seem to have a far smaller price attached. By forcing Congressmen to spent a huge majority of their time seeking money, every dime becomes very important to them. It encourages them to "compete" hard to get that money. Financed by a few small people, however, and he can spend more time doing his job and less time begging all and sundry for money.

Additionally, the power would shift to people who inherently have a lot of money rather than people who can tap others with money. When no individual can give more than $2,000, the key person is the fundraiser who can reach out and cause a lot of those contributions. Those fundraisers tend to be of the Abramoff type (not exclusively, there are many fine and honorable ones, but there is a greater tendency toward the bad). They focus on money much more than policies. And they find that those scare tactics are very effective. Lifting the limit would shift power more towards the people who actually produce wealth... Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch, etc. They generally have money because they have added a lot of value to our society. I might prefer to let them have the influence rather than the professional fundraisers.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 10, 2006 06:33 PM

Just a thought, mind you. I'm certainly not saying it's the only solution or even that it's a good one.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 10, 2006 06:33 PM

I'm about as far towards the side of Pat and Simon as one can be without being in 100% agreement. And a half step closer because Pat mentions Mark Twain, an accused misanthrope who today would be an acerbic centrist hero and talk show host.

There are serious and perhaps intractable first amendment problems with all formulations of campaign finance reform I have seen so far. Yet I acknowledge a demonstrable imbalance of power between monied lobbies and john q. public that troubles me, and I am certain that money and speech are distinct.

The only "answer" I have that I am comfortable with is that I am not ready to give up. I lean along the lines Cengel sketches, of trying to reform the way that campaigns are conducted and related information disseminated. I'd like to see set-asides that foster candidates ability to communicate directly with existing mass audiences, and try to foster circumstance under which its less necessary for all viable candidates to spend substantial time collecting money from powerful lobbies.

We may very well not be able to make these undesirable aspects of modern democracy illegal without violating the 1st amendment, and if that is indeed so, as circumstances relentlessly continue to suggest, then the question becomes this: what can we do to make these undesirable aspects of modern democracy unnecessary and unwise for politicians to engage in, and thus more rare?

Here's where Pat chimes in, uncontent with 99% of a loaf, to say that he's not sure these aspects I speak of are even truly undesirable. :-)

Posted by: bk at January 11, 2006 03:13 PM

I chime in simply to point out that the Sierra Club, the NRA, the ACLU, and even those evil (gasp) unions are not amorphous automatons, Godzillas gamboling across giant cityscapes. They are speaking for their members.

One voice calling for the right to keep and bear arms won't make much difference. But when tens of thousands of people sharing similar sentiments speak, each individual's voice is amplified so that it can be heard across the nation. Likewise, the single tear flowing down the Native American's cheek at the sight of all that litter will be seen by no one and change no minds unless money is raised and spent to broadcast it to the rest of the country.

Any individual member of or contributor to the NRA or Keep America Beautiful may not agree with every single thing those organizations stand for. But they obviously agree with enough of their positions to continue giving them money.

Of course the "monied lobbyists" are listened to more by legislators than is "John Q. Public"... they speak on behalf of more people (more votes) than does poor Mr. Public. If Mr. Public wants to have his voice heard, he needs to convince others to see things his way, develop a following so that he can speak with a louder voice, too.

Money is speech, because I cannot speak to my fellow citizens in California, or even my fellow citizens in my own state, without money. If money is not speech, than all I have under the First Amendment is the right to stand on a street corner screaming, and nothing else. No right to assemble with others to speak in a louder voice, no right to persuade others in other communities, no right to speak to more than a very small number of people at once.

Posted by: PatHMV at January 11, 2006 04:23 PM