NYT editorial: One candidate, at least, paused to observe the tastelessness of the money race

[DeepModem Mom]

Editorial
Running for Dollars
Published: April 5, 2007

At least one of the presidential candidates making the first feverish dash of the 2008 fund-raising derby felt obliged to describe the tastelessness of the race. “I’m raising obscene amounts of money,” said Senator Barack Obama, hardly pausing on his way to piling up a first-round total of $25 million.

This is already a record-breaking campaign for the sheer volume of money it is generating. It also is setting a new low with a ludicrously premature handicapping of the race based on the ability to raise cash. It is 19 months before the election, and the quarterly fund-raising data were treated this week like the dawning of poll results from Dixville Notch, N.H.

All this in a race that is supposed to be a different sort of competition — if not of ideas, then at least of personalities and positions.

This is not just another example of picking a winner before a vote is cast. This year, the political industry is spinning the money before it is spent, ordaining mega-fund-raising as the sine qua non of a credible candidacy. Dispatches heralded “the winners of the first presidential fund-raising race,” pronouncing one big $20 million raiser (Mitt Romney) as instantly “formidable” and a “rising force” in the campaign, while discounting a more familiar aspirant (Senator John McCain) as “lackluster” and “anemic” for showing at a mere $12.5 million.

If only voters’ optimism about the nation and the political system could rise in direct proportion to the money stacks.

The one thing established by the private fund-raising binge is that the nation needs the alternative of limited public financing as a rational option for seeking the presidency just as much as when it was enacted in response to the Watergate era of big-money corruption....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/opinion/05thu1.html?hp

[treelogger]

1. So let's try a radical proposal

How about this. Why do people give money to candidates?

First reason: Because they want their candidate to win. But in a democracy, we already have the correct technique for people to express that they want their candidate to win, and it happens when they make a cross on the ballot. Why should people who have more money to spare on campaigns have a larger influence in the process? If we wanted that, we could eliminate the middleman, and give people variable-sized votes (for example, the number of votes they get is identical to the amount of tax they paid, maybe then they would stop whining about all the taxes they have to pay).

Second reason: Because the expect "political favors". Which means anything from "push legislation that favorable to me or my business" to direct graft like "illegally steer this construction contract to me". This is corrupt. In many cases it is illegal; where it isn't illegal, it is immoral.

So how about the following new rule: Any political candidate who accepts ANY campaign contribution is tried for attempted bribery (passive); if found guilty by a court, he is punished by making him ineligible for elected office. Any non-candidate who gives money to a candidate is tried for attempted bribery (active), they are punished by losing their right to vote.

Clearly, we still need political campaigns. But we don't need the gigantic machines that spread ads that have no content, other than feelgood pictures (of babies, or of cute bunnies), and of disparaging your opponent (usually with lies, or distortions, which are lies that are hard to catch). We still allow volunteers to work on the campaign, but without fund-raising and without political advertising, they can do things like hold rallies, or go house to house. We would need to prevent people from running campaign ads on their own free will, and with their own money. This would fundamentally mean that political advertising becomes a form of speech that is tightly regulated.

To compensate, candidates would need to get public campaign funds. Using an algorithm that is fair (for example, everyone gets the same amount, and we filter candidates by requiring a number of signatures, or some other technique to prevent joke candidacies).

Clearly, this requires a massive change in the legal system. To begin with, it would cut into the freedom of speech in the 1st amendment, as political speech would be regulated, to prevent funding for political advertising from distorting elections. This is at least in principle feasible; there are lots of other restrictions on the 1st amendment already (see DMCA, see patriot act, see shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre"). Plus, we are not restricting freedom of speech per se: You can still say your opinion. We are restriction the freedom to speak very loudly: You can't rent many hours of TV prime time across the nation for $10M, to shout and blast your opinion to everyone in the country all at once. You have to entice people to come hear your opinion.

What do you guys think?

[calimary]

2. Well, I'm not sure what to do about it, but we HAVE to start somewhere.

Good that you're thinking about it.

And Welcome to DU!!!