Dumb Ideas Worth Considering, Volume I

Now that the elections are over, I wanted to bring up one of those topics that interests only me and a few other people that are no fun at parties. The kind that makes Tara roll her eyes and tell me how boring I can be. You want fun and exciting, come back in a few days. Or start your own blog. Because today, I'm writing about publicly financed, a.k.a. "clean", elections.

This one has supporters on the left (Barack Obama, Common Cause) as well as the right (George Voinovich, Lou Dobbs), although it seems to be traditionally considered another wacko progressive pinko issue, like suing people who deny your civil rights, or speaking your mind without going to jail.

I know. Those darn libs, huh?

The Supreme Court took a very narrow view of money equaling political free speech in Buckley v. Valeo (424 US 1) in 1976, which invalidated provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. One of those provisions limited the personal contribution individual candidates can give to their own campaign to a paltry $10 million, but the ruling overturned this on the grounds that these limitations restricted political speech (in the form of money) without any compelling government reason to do so. Right now, this along with McConnell v. FEC (540 US 93, 2003, which upheld the McCain-Feingold reforms) is the outstanding case law, taking a real dump on any realistic chance for change.

But after spending all autumn watching a bunch of millionaires thrash it out to get elected, and knowing that the more money you have the less reality you usually have to face, my question is becoming more and more pointed. Why are we allowing the system to deteriorate to the point where you have to basically be able to crap $20 bills or suck corporate...um...you know...to finance a political campaign? I think the "compelling government reason" is starting to make itself pretty evident.

Sometimes the best qualified legislators--the true voices of the people--are forced to turn away from the political arena because they'd either be beholden to stinky special-interest PAC money or go bankrupt gunning for what is technically a low-paying government job. It becomes solely a rich person's game. Not that ALL wealthy people are bad politicians, but it just doesn't seem fair that wealth is a prerequisite to declaring a serious candidacy.

So what to do?

1) Sue again under McCain-Feingold until we find an appeals court that realizes that Clean Elections will actually yield a better class of candidate than the average shmoe we have around now.

2) Allow for the objections raised in both Buckley and McConnell by reducing the reason for having to raise the kind of money you need nowadays. It's painfully obvious that most of the money raised goes to buying television and radio advertising. If the FCC were to mandate free or reduced cost media time for all balloted candidates (the same way it mandates public service announcements, the Emergency Broadcast System, and no swearing or nudity), then go ahead, raise the money, and spend it on megaphones and bumper stickers, because media time is cheap, on a level playing field, and available to all qualified candidates equally. Somebody smarter than me will have to figure out how to guarantee equality to write-in candidates. I don't know. How about a federally funded "The Election Channel"?

3) Some states, such as Maine, provide a "clean" option for candidates who choose to run that way. It's not a mandatory system and candidates can opt out, so it's up to the voters to value the clean candidates appropriately. Yeah, I wouldn't think it would help in states with any more than 6 electoral votes either; but it is an option and I wanted to bring it up.

The whole core of the issue is an opinion call, anyway. Both Buckley and McConnell were split decisions; McConnell was 5-4. Britain and a bunch of other countries run publicly financed elections and their civilizations haven't come crumbling down yet, so the whole doom-and-gloom slippery slope scenarios that opponents paint are a bit of a scare tactic.

If this last election doesn't prove the importance of getting the best candidates out there and forcing them to sharpen their messages, then nothing will. And just keep in mind that if you do what you've always done, don't be surprised when things turn out the way they always have.

Honey, next time, I promise to try to be less boring.