Back in 1972 I did an article for the Columbia Journalism review in which I
proposed "taking money out of political campaigns" not by providing public
fund to candidates, but by having the government provide the
mechanisms for campaigning equally to all candidates who met certain thresholds.
There would be scheduled dates for mailings to voters. All candidates would
be permitted to include an insert in that mailing subject to the same physical
constriction on the individual piece. All candidates would receive equal amounts
of radio and television time and access to studio space, editing, etc. I took
the position that the 30-second TV spot was the most corrupting element in the
campaign structure because it demanded the most in fundraising. I did this
piece after 11 years as a political reporter and 2 years as the press director
of several campaigns.
I no longer hold these views. I'm older and wiser now and I've been a
political consultant for 41 years. I don't believe actual corruption is as
widespread as some would have us believe. I do believe fundraising creates
compromises in the process that are not necessarily good. But when all is said
and done, I believe more in the first amendment and that is the door
through which we get independent expenditures. Last week I had an op-ed in the
L.A. Times in which I advocated the elimination of contribution limits. That's
how far I've traveled since 1972. Without contribution limits there would be no
independent expenditures. The public would be able to know exactly who is
supporting a particular candidate and to what extent.
As for the notion of the so-called shakedown, I would venture that occurs
so infrequently as to be not worthy of major overhauls in the process of
campaign funding. Based my 52 years of observing and participating in the
political process I recognize it more as an insider joke than a pervasive
reality.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:35
AM
Subject: [EL] Bribery or extortion?
Much of the demand for regulation of campaign donations or
expenditures seems to be based on a model of veiled bribery, but perhaps more
often, it is a shakedown. Incumbents will conspire with members of the
opposite party to introduce legislation intended not to actually be adopted,
but to scaring the constituents of the opposite member into supporting him. It
is like having two protection racket gangs cooperating to each extort money
from the same merchants by promising to protect them from the opposite gang.
That is why so many (reluctantly) donate to both parties.
Shakedown:
Why we need public financing of campaigns
Contrary to the article,
I do not favor public financing of campaigns, except perhaps to provide
candidate forums at which all candidate are invited to appear.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing
list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law