I've had this idea for a long time, but this
front page story in tomorrow's Washington Post made me think it's an idea whose time has come.
The gist:
The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.
The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.
More below the fold ...
For progressives, campaign finance reform has been a core issue since - well, since before I was old enough to understand that there was a Bill of Rights and that the First Amendment gave me freedom of speech.
And, despite the fact that I am a progressive and a (disappointed) Democrat, I actually believe that money is a form of speech - as in, aside from the taxes I pay that go for things like Social Security, road building, water treatment, schools etc., I don't want the government to tell me how to spend the rest of my non-tax money.
Which leads me to the crux of the lobbying/campaign finance debate: the Supreme Court agrees that money is a form of speech. As such, you can't prohibit the legalized form of graft and bribery that, in Amurka, we call 1) "lobbying," and 2) the giant sucking sound that accompanies every campaign season as greasy politicos rush around the country raising obscene amounts from shady characters to spend on television ads.
Can't prohibit it, unless ... you amend the constitution to re-define political spending as a specific threat to Democracy and majority rule. I can think of no greater evil, no darker cancer eating away at our great nation, than the role money plays in determining policy. I also can think of no legal recourse other than the constitution.
I also think that Americans - red, blue, purple and green - are also deeply cynical about politics precisely because we understand that members of Congress and the White House are commodities to be sold on the market like corn or, more accurately, like pigs. So I think that a grass-roots effort to end legalized bribery may actually stand a chance. Call me an ignorant optimist ...
There are many, many questions this raises, so here I'll address the core one or two.
Why amend the Constitution, and not just do something in Congress or the States?
Quickly, McCain has tried to do this for years. There is simply too much at stake for Congress to ever vote itself back into the realm of public service. No-go. And the states can't do anything because the Supremes won't allow it.
But then how do politicians campaign for office if they can't buy all that TV time?
This is actually the fun part. Turns out that, despite the best efforts of Michael Powell and the FCC, the American public still own the airwaves. The constitutional amendment would need to include a regulatory finding that mandates that ANY FCC licensee MUST provide free and equal time to legitimate, recognized candidates for office during the final three months (or whatever amount of time) of campaign season. Message gets out, no Swift Boat ads or Fake John Kerry Smiles muddying up the real debate because such independent ads would be illegal.
I know, I know, all our 527 friends would be royally pissed, but the greater good of choking off the corporate greedheads and K-street slimeballs far outweighs any advantage we gain from raising unlimited money for candidates. It actually could help, because that money could still, say, go for issues, and let the candidates duke it out over where they stand.
It's a wild idea but thought I'd throw it out there. On balance, I think progressive values win in a non-corrupt system, though, like I said, there are a lot of unanswered questions.
Anyone? Bueller?