Thanks for giving this article a look. I would like to start a prolonged open discussion on the topic of public financing of elections here in America. Below, I will present my arguments for this idea, what I hear from others as counter-arguments, and my response to those counter-arguments. I invite all who are interested in joining in this discussion, either through the Comments section, or in their own posted articles. I urge all to keep these discussions “clean”: state your opinions as such, argue from the facts, and avoid attacking others personally for having an opposing idea.
First some background. Our government is bought and paid for by wealthy interests. The sad fact is that no one gets to hold public office in America without running an effective election campaign, and an effective election campaign costs money. In order to gain office and be re-elected, a law-maker must solicit and receive donations from people with money to give. And most often, those with money to give want something in return: a law favoring their business, freedom from regulatory oversight, a lower tax rate, etc. Rather than a democracy as envisioned by the founding fathers, we have instead a government by the wealthy interests, of the wealthy interests, and for the wealthy interests.
This is my opinion, and I think it is an opinion that is shared by a large majority of Americans both on the left and right. I think many involved in the OWS movement are motivated in part by an awareness of this problem, and I would further suggest that one of the goals of the OWS movement is to bring greater awareness of this problem. Is a government exclusively made up of the wealthy interests a problem? I think so: I think it explains why we have been involved in two failed wars for the better part of a decade, why the catastrophic economic collapse of 2008 occurred, and why the government's response to that crisis benefited large financial institutions so handsomely, and left so many Americans with long-term unemployment, and/or in danger of losing their homes.
So, what to do? I have advocated before and I will continue to advocate that the comprehensive solution to this problem is to protect our law-makers from the inherently corrupting activity of soliciting and receiving private donations in order to run for office. I think the best way to do this is to outlaw ALL private donations to ALL office-seekers down to the county level, including judges, and finance ALL elections, down to the county level and including judges, through public money. Making public money (i.e. money from the tax-payers) available to office-seekers would release our law-makers from the obligation to cater to the wealthy donors in order to pay for their election campaigns. Instead, such public funding would free our law-makers to draft and vote on legislation according to their conscience or their understanding of the wishes of the largest number of tax-payers (ie. those funding the elections) in their districts.
This in my opinion is the most comprehensive means to restore government for the people, of the people, and by the people. And I point out this is not a new idea: Theodore Roosevelt, a famous conservative American president, himself advocated for public financing of election campaigns. Russ Feingold, a famous American democratic senator, also has advocated for the public financing of election campaigns, and even wrote legislation to limit private donations to politicians. And there exist today several large organizations dedicated to advocating, promoting, and lobbying for the public financing of elections.
When I advance this idea of the public financing of elections in conversations with others, the feedback I hear in return is “that's a good idea” and “it could never happen here in America”. Those nay-sayer have very real and very good objections. They say that our legislators will not accept this idea, meaning as it does an end to those legislators' gravy train. The say the monied interests will use their money and political influence to prevent any such change. They say no such law would ever make it through congress or receive a presidential signature. And they say the Supreme Court has already ruled that the giving of unlimited amounts of money to election campaigns is protected speech, and would find any such a law unconstitutional.
And let me add one other danger: single-party repressive regimes often outlaw the giving of money to opposition candidates as a way of continuing their monopolistic hold on power.
So there are very real hurdles to the idea of public financing of political campaigns. Despite those high hurdles, I still think this is a comprehensive solution to the buying and selling of our government, and I still think this is an idea that can indeed happen here in America. I say this based on my reading of American history.
The history of America politics is the story of lots of impossible things that could never have happened
It was never going to happen that a rag-tag group of colonists would overthrown King George.
It was never going to happen that slavery would end.
It was never going to happen that black or brown people would be allowed to vote.
It was never going to happen that women would be allowed to vote.
It was never going to happen large industrial conglomerates would be required by law to provide a safe work-place for their employees.
It was never going to happen that workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively would be recognized under the law.
It was never going to happen that black and white children would attend the same schools.
It was never going to happen that blacks and whites would sit at the same lunch counter.
It was never happen that equality of civil rights would be guaranteed under the law.
It was never going to happen that a woman would run for president
It was never going to happen that a black man would be elected to the office of president.
All of these things were at one time thought impossible and the conventional wisdom was that they would never happen in America. Yet all of these things indeed happened. NONE of these things happened because our law-makers were terrible enthusiastic about these ideas. They happened because the people together insisted on these actions, often over the objections of their representatives in government.
I firmly believe that as long as people say “that will never happen”, then it probably won't happen. I also believe that when people start to say “this HAS to happen, because it is right and correct”, then we have overcome the first large hurdle, and we are on the way to seeing it done.
OK, fine, say the nay-sayers. What about the Supreme Court? Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that donating money to political causes is protected speech, and therefore the Supreme Court will sure find as unconstitutional any effort to restrict the giving of money to politicians?
Well, again, there are many examples in history of rulings that were at one time made by the Supreme Court and considered the law of the land, that today we recognized as flatly wrong. At one time, the Supreme Court ruled that black people do not have the same rights as white people. At one time, the Supreme Court ruled that women do not have the right to vote. Today, we marvel that our country could be so ignorant and mean-spirited, and we cannot imagine that such laws would ever pass any review. The Supreme Court can and does reverse itself, most often on issues where great public attention has been brought to bear.
I was pleased to see Rachael Maddow give some of these ideas an airing on her MSNBC program last night (Thurs 10/13). I happened to tune in as she interviewed Lawrence Lessig, a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Maddow shared her concern about the buying and selling of our law-makers through private campaign donations, and Prof. Lessig in turn spoke out for the public financing of political campaigns. Ms. Maddow then went on to say that our constitution contains a mechanism, the constitutional convention, whereby changes to our laws can be brought about over the obstructions of the legislative branch of government. It is possible the effort to bring about full public financing of our elections will require a constitutional amendment.
I agree that the effort to remove the corruption amongst our law-makers will not be easy, and I don't think it will happen quickly. I expect that the legislative and judicial branches of our government will need to be dragged kicking and screaming towards the idea of public funding for election campaigns by a concerted public effort. However, I remain optimistic this can indeed happen, despite the difficulties involved.
In part, my optimism has been recently invigorated by the OWS movement, and their wonderful efforts to highlight the issues of economic and political inequality here in America. They are giving voice to the unspoken thoughts of millions of Americans, and in return, have received support from a broad spectrum of Americans from all walks of life in cities and towns across the country. If we are ever to see full public funding of election campaigns in America, it will require this sort of wide and loud public attention. I fully understand that the OWS movement may not want to tie themselves to any particular issue or advocacy at this time. I hope when the time comes to move from simply calling attention to the problem of inequality to working to correct them, the idea of full public funding of election campaigns gets full consideration.
Now I have said my piece. I invite anyone interested to comment on what I have said or post an article in response.