For those of you not familiar with Bob Bauer, he is one of the nation's leading election lawyers, representing, among others, Barack Obama on personal matters, the Obama for America campaign, the Democrat's House and Senate campaign committees, and the Democratic National Committee. Last year, Bauer took on Republicans throughout the campaign, fighting against attempts to "callously attempting to dismantle needed reforms to make up for their fundraising deficiencies." Bob Bauer also led Barack Obama's massive nationwide voter protection network over the course of the campaign.
This week, Bob Bauer put his thoughts on the Change Congress Donors' Strike on paper, giving a thorough analysis of Change Congress' fight to remove big money from American politics. Bauer posted his take on his blog, and the full post can be viewed below.
For more on the Change Congress Donor Strike, visit http://change-congress.org.
Its logic has been questioned and, as a lobbying strategy its effectiveness is in doubt, but still Larry Lessig and Joe Trippi press on with their donor strike for campaign finance reform. They urge donors to withhold further donations to elected officials who have yet to support public financing reform. To some, the ironical element in this crusade is hard to miss. Do as I say, and I will give you money; if not, I won’t: quid pro quo, or I say no. It is suggested, too, that this is a bit of flimflammery, since there is no way of knowing whether the pledge-makers would have given the money.
All these jibes are fair enough. They are also too easily thrown. There are other more favorable ways of looking at this initiative.
Public financing schemes rely on private and public funds, as does the Congressional public financing bill that Lessig and Tripp favor, the Specter-Durbin bill. Donors could very reasonably say that they will only give again if their representative, or any other candidate pining for their dollars, is willing to bring the government along, making it a partner in the financial support of campaigns. These "pledge" donors do not choose to invest indefinitely in the system we have now, and they will hold back their own money until there is a prospect for a reformed, public/private system.
One could choose to see the pledge this way, not as the act of hypocrisy that Lessig and Trippi’s critics see. And what of the possibility that this is a bit of a confidence game: money "withheld" that might never have been given, in return for the legislative act that the donors want?
Again, rather than deny this possibility, supporters of the Change Congress pledge program should keep doubt alive. It lightens the charge of a quid pro quo: no one can know if this is a real threat with money or a bluff, and it is this uncertainty that largely accounts for the campaign’s quality as political theatre. And the touch of absurdity in this dangling of money to achieve money-in-politics reform is another and slightly ingenious way of dramatizing Lessig and Trippi’s point.
Granted, Lessig and Trippi seem more earnest than puckish in their speaking and writing on this program. Maybe the reading offered here is too generous. But it is an alternative interpretation of this grassroots lobbying campaign and it should be considered.
And for the hold-outs, who remain unconvinced, there is also this to ponder: public financing reform has been an elite preoccupation for a long time. If Lessig and Trippi succeed in giving it a grassroots, small donor base of support—and this remains to be seen—this is a good turn for campaign finance reform. And certainly worth the try.
--
For more, you can follow me on Twitter @joetrippi and check back for updates at joetrippi.com.