User login

Home › Open Forum › What do you think? › Discuss the Issues

Maybe not so good an idea

Joel S. Hirschhorn — Thu, 12/06/2007 - 11:47

Forum topic related to:

What caught my attention is this: But none of them will be able to prove it.
Sorry, those who give big money will find ways to document that they have shifted money to a particular account.
The much better solution to corrupting impacts of campaign money already exists; several states use the Clean Money/Clean Election system that provides competitive public financing of campaigns to those candidates choosing to participate. But ultimately we need a deeper reform: a constitutional amendment that takes ALL private money out of the political system, so that just public financing of campaigns prevails.

A delusional democracy breeds delusional prosperity

‹ I agree - how can we create a postive alternative? The general ignorance of American people ›
Thu, 12/13/2007 - 15:09 — Dave

I would favor fully public financing, but this idea has merit

I agree with you that public financing would be the best solution, but constitutional amendments are a bit tough to accomplish. And in this case, can you imagine the private funds that would amass to defeat such a measure? This is not to say we shouldn't pursue that possibility, but interim reforms might make it more possible to mount more ambitious campaigns.

You're right that big money contributors would go to great lengths to try to demonstrate that they had indeed been the ones to line a particular politicians pockets. But Ackerman and Ayres claim that "there are many ways to assure that (politicians) will not be able to identify who provided the funds." They don't offer specifics, but I can't say with certainty that they are wrong. As they go on to explain:

"This will not stop lots of people from telling party leaders that they have given vast sums. But none of them will be able to prove it. As a consequence, lots of people who did not give gifts will also claim to have provided large amounts, and it will be impossible for politicians to know who is telling the truth."

Again, without the specifics, it's hard to know how workable this is. But their claim seems logical to me. Big money contributors could show documentation demonstrating that cash went out of a particular account, as you suggest, and could claim that this went to Congressman Smith, but how is Congressman Smith to know that it didn't go to his/her opponent? If I'm a big-money-person, there is no downside for me in making similar claims to every candidate. And even as a non-big-money-person, there is no downside for me in claiming that I made a large contribution. How much time/labor would it take for the staffs of elected officials or candidates to track down the veracity of such claims? It would be a whole lot harder than it is now, where you just have to check the ledger. Ackerman and Ayres' system seems to throw a considerable kink into the quid pro quo. Will big money contributors try to find ways around it? Sure. But doing so would be illegal, and therefore considerably harder than the status quo.