McCutcheon: Unlimited Bribery
unlimitedcorruption.com
unlimitedcorruption.com
After watching a few documentaries about campaign finance reform, I realized this is only partially true. In reality, it's just as common for legislators to solicit money from lobbyists.
In one case I heard of a policymaker leaving a voicemail for a corporate lobbyist that went something along the lines of, "I hear you represent [x liquor company]. I sit on a committee charged with reviewing alcohol-related ads. I was just wondering why I haven't received any contributions from you."
Unfortunately, the money simply isn't there.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-superpac-spending/
While trying to be a parody, the page basically describes ALEC.
Here are the details of the law they are pushing for: http://anticorruptionact.org/
I'm very happy to know that campaign finance is getting this sort of attention. I've always been incredulous that in our system, bribery isn't just legal, it's literally mandatory -- you can't get elected if you're too clean to accept shady campaign contributions.
I love the $100 tax-rebate-for-campaign-contributions idea. I have long thought that we needed to publicly fund campaigns but despaired at the power of entrenched interests: existing campaign finance reform laws came with loopholes that ultimately revealed them as PR stunts rather than legitimate efforts to curb bribery. The tax rebate is exciting because it sneaks a backdoor into what would appear to be another bogus reform law.
"Naming and shaming" lobbyists, muzzling the latest contribution-funneling-device-du-jour, and calling for more regular rule enforcement aren't strategies that strike me as particularly promising, since they simply call for more of what we're already doing (if x gets us nothing, no reason to expect 2x will get us more). But they serve as the perfect vehicle to deliver #7, the tax rebate, which silently activates once public interest reaches a certain threshold (enough to outspend current election financiers) and gives the bill teeth. A brilliant design!
I really hope this works. I doubt it will, but I really, really want to be wrong.
It's definitely incentivized me to redirect this portion of my Oregon taxes to a candidate (on local/state/national level) I support.
EDIT: link with info.
http://www.oregonfamilycouncil.org/sites/default/files/under...
I'm fairly certain no other form of campaign finance can work. You can require lobbyists and politicians to jump through higher and higher hoops but at the end of the day politicians will still need to fund their campaigns, most people still won't want to spend their money on politics, and lobbyists will still be willing to do what is necessary to net a few 100-1000x ROI wins for their employers. The hoops will be jumped and the asymmetric bribery will continue until regular people get in on the game, and the only way to get regular people in on the game is to pay them to do so since, unlike their wealthier counterparts, they can't count on the occasional 100-1000x ROI win to incentivize their donations.
The U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear a campaign finance case that could do away with the contribution limits that limit rich people’s influence over politics.Currently, federal law only lets individuals give $2,600 to any one candidate during a single election.
On top of that limit, people can only give $123,000 to candidates, political action committees, and parties over a two-year period.
<continues>
I don't care what the Constitution says. The constitutional provisions for petitioning and free speech have turned into bribery. Bribery is wrong. If the Constitution says otherwise, the Constitution is wrong.
In essence, he proposes that all campaign donations go into a "black box" and are secretly reversible. So you can write a check to your politician's PAC, hand it directly to him but he must deposit the funds into the black box. Then you can secretly get some or all of your money back - the politician can't tell who reneged on their donation.
Lessig's approach does not in any way restrict how much you can give to a politician - there is no "censorship" in mandating that political donations go into a black box - the campaign can still see that you made the donation - they still "hear" your speech. Nor are you forced to keep it a secret if you reneg, you are free to tell the politician you took back your money if you really want him to know that.
Reportedly something like the above was tried on a small scale, an election for Miami or south Florida, judges. Apparently the result was that all of the campaigns netted exactly zero dollars in donations when all was said and done.
(Also, and I'm saying this as a nerdy Democrat, calling out the lobbying efforts of Bloomberg, Koch, et al is easier but significantly less educational than, say, the lobbying efforts of Google and Amazon.)