OK, so, let’s try something constructive here. I’ve been arguing these points for a while but they keep getting lost in the fray. But I seem to be having a bit of a constructive conversation in another diary about the issues themselves so maybe that’s something that can grow into a larger diary.
Much has been made about Hillary’s speaking tour. Regardless of what it means in terms of who may or may not be a better candidate or what may or may not appear to be a conflict of interest, it raises some important issues about campaign finance reform that are difficult to regulate — but that I believe in terms of creating a better and more effective democracy that we want to regulate in the future.
So there are three areas of potential reform that come to mind. And remember, reform needs to address the appearance of impropriety — not just impropriety itself. The appearance hurts both the public perception but as we have seen, can affect the reputation of the person (or candidate) as well.
The first is the one that folks are most intimately familiar with —
1) Campaign finance reform — How much money can people, corporations, and other entities give to political campaigns (including their own) or to parties that advertise in support or defense of those campaigns. I think there is lots of information here on what can be done, and much is already proposed if you look at what NGOs are proposing. But this includes:
- regulating how and when corporations can give to campaigns
- regulating how much any entities including persons, corporations can give to campaigns
- regulating how much wealthy candidates can give to their own campaigns
- stimulating options by providing modernized public financing of campaigns
- regulating of PACs and other independent entities
I honestly don’t care about talking about this today. I think we are all on board with doing as much as we can in this arena. The debate here mostly focuses on what to do in the interim — which I think we can agree to disagree on.
2) Closing the revolving door — How much money can people receive from entities that they are regulating after they leave office/government jobs? This basically involves this hypothetical I raised in the linked comments:
Person C is the Secretary of Energy. Person C knows that their predecessor left the job and became a member of the Board at Exxon. They receive annual stipends of $300,000 for that position and really all they have to do is pay attention to e-mail correspondence, attend regular board meetings, etc… It’s basically a part time job of 10 hours per week on average (tops). Now, there is a decision coming up involving the approval of a new offshore drilling field. Chevron, BP, Exxon, whomever they are (I lost track of mergers) are all wanting in. This person hasn’t even taken a job at these companies and they already have a conflict of interest. Because the promise of a high paying low effort gig already exists for them.
Folks may not realize this but this happens at all levels of government. It isn’t just elected officials and appointees. Bureaucrats buried in the EPA regulating air emissions can suddenly end up working for coal companies. It happens in state governments too. It is a real issue but how do you regulate it? Maybe a couple of areas are:
-
Transparency — extend financial disclosures to cover a period of time after public service
-
Accountability — cap income received from industries regulated in former position for a period of time
These issues get into tricky territory. Who are we to tell someone where they can and cannot work after their term of public service is done? Well, private companies do it all the time or at least try to with non-compete clauses as one example. And while there are some questions about their enforceability, the fact that virtually every company uses them these days shows that they are effective deterrents. So I think we can regulate this, but we have to do it in a way that respects that person’s independence as a citizen after leaving office. So regardless of what is proposed it should have a time limit like non-compete clauses typically do.
3) Never opening the revolving door — What can people who do run for office do to remove the taint of impropriety from financial (or other) gains received from industries they now propose to regulate? This is a very, very tricky one (to even discuss here). I know it relates most closely to the current debate so try and remember that:
- It’s the appearance of impropriety that needs to be addressed, not just the impropriety itself
- Regardless of the persons intentions or actual actions, the appearance of impropriety leaves a taint on that person
This is a tough one but I think the one thing we probably can all agree on is transparency. Prospective candidates and appointees should have an expectation of a certain amount of transparency going into elections. Some examples of this could include:
- mandatory disclosure of the last 3 tax returns
- mandatory disclosure of any recent work product not covered under another party’s privacy/proprietary concerns
These are just ideas. I was reluctant to bring up the second point because it could relate to the speech transcripts in question this year. But perhaps if a person knows in advance the full scope of what they are required by law to disclose then they can ensure that anything they do or say in advance is done in a way that removes any appearance of impropriety alone. People do this all the time. They decide, for example, to take a job or not take a job based on how it affects their prospects with other jobs.
Let’s recap acknowledge one thing here. Whether you are guilty of quid pro quo or not, the appearance of a conflict results in a taint (and always has). So try to think about it in those terms. It hurts a candidate to have that taint regardless of their own actual goodness or badness. And it hurts the dialogue to have to deal with potential impropriety instead of debating more specifically on an issue. But it hurts the public interest to not have disclosure too. So there are some complex issues here.
I’m not saying that the ideas floated here are any good. I know there are many better ideas floated already elsewhere. I’m just trying to help provide perspective for the issues that right now are a little too myopic. And to generate discussion. I know it’s less fun than the pie fights. And probably folks aren’t interested if it’s isn’t a pie fight. But I thought i’d try anyhow.