Rating: 
Viewed: 106 times.
Print
On Friday, Brian Griffiths decided I need a trip to the woodshed vis-a-vis my ideas on Campaign Finance Reform. He decided that I struck out like the Mighty Casey.
Just to summarize: my argument is that political contributions at all levels of government should be tied directly to individuals -- registered voters, more specifically -- and that companies, corporations, LLCs, etc should be banned from contributing money to campaigns. Moreover, I argue that the entire post-Watergate structure of PACs and 527s should be eliminated.
Brian puts up an admirable argument, that the Supreme Court has settled the issue that political contributions are free speech under Buckley v. Valeo, and that as corporations enjoy the same "rights" as individuals, this would cover them.
However, corporations and companies do not enjoy "rights". They enjoy protections, legal and otherwise. Business entities are formed for the purpose limiting individual liability to the owners, stockholders, managers, and employees. This liability extends across the spectrum from tax liability to legal liability.
Protections are NOT the same as rights. Moreover, if you took a strict constructionist view of the language of the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments -- which would explicity speak to political contributions and the power of government to regulate them -- those Amendments speak of "the people"; not the "Companies", not the "LLCs", and not the "Corporations".
Brian also raises the issue that limiting political contributions to registered voters would be a violation of our free speech rights. I am not sure that this argument would carry much water under either a facial challenge or an as-applied challenge. Why?
First, requiring voters to register to contribute does not impose even a minimal burden on their ability to exercise their right of speech in political campaigns through political contributions. Thanks to the Clinton-Era National Voter Registration Act, everyone can register to vote when they go to obtain or update a drivers license -- something everyone has to do at least every 5 years. Furthermore, because of Charles H. Wesley Education Foundation v. Cathy Cox, state governments must now allow third-parties to run their own voter-registration drives without the presence or blessing of state officials.
Second, a right to speech to does not imply an absolute right to anonymous speech. No credible judge -- even the most hippie-fied, left-wing, granola crunching hyperliberal -- has ever held that. In fact, under current FEC (and most state) reporting requirements, you have less anonymity in contributing to campaigns than you do in exercising verbal or written political speech.
Third, it does not present a marked barrier to participating in the process-- only in one part of the process, that currently requires even non-registered participants to provide substantial information in order to participate.
Brian also, surprisingly, raises a straw man argument in tracking registered voter donations across districts (and I assume, by extension, state lines as well). That isn't a problem. No more of a problem than Barack Obama's campaign identifying that Joe Sixpack in Wachapreague, VA actually works for Jim Bob's Gas Station. It's nothing that cannot be changed through simple technology.
Brian disagrees that politicians should have to publish their donor lists, claiming that the information is available 24/7. Really? I wonder how often Brian uses the so-called database the state provides. Quite frankly, I write applications like this for a living, and monkeys fucking a football could do a better job. Also, I would like to see elected officials (or even the losers) step up to the plate and say "This is my list of donors, and I am comfortable with the people donating to me." In other words, I think a couple pounds of accountability to should be infused on the recipient side of the ledger.
Finally, Brian makes the claim that these changes wouldn't make government cleaner, rather it would just push it back into the backroom-stuff that we already see. I would like Brian to expound on that argument futher, but I don't see how that can be true. Knowing who gave how much when -- say, like a week before the General Assembly convenes -- would be very instructive. It would force the nebulous "pay for play" schemes of the Bruce Bereanos out into the light (actually, it would probably put Bruce Bereano out of business).
I have no problem with people seeking redress of their grievances with government. In fact, I would love to see a little more "righteous anger" directed at the Towson Courthouse and the State House. But the simple fact is that the current system is broken, because it provides too many cracks in the wall where the nefarious can hide. By moving toward a full-disclosure system quickly, and requiring that participants in the system actually be registered voters (and thus, US citizens), we would avoid the Johnny Huang "money in a sack" donations of the 1990s, the ABSCAM/Fat Jack Murtha scandals of the 70s, and really shine a spotlight on the Keating Five-like nonsense of the 80s.
Crooked government is no government at all, and its time we "shine this little light o 'mine".