Gov. Howard Dean is reportedly considering to
decline public financing for his Presidential campaign, a move that hilights how useless the current system is. Mr. Bush of course has, as far as I know, always declined public financing so that he can ignore limits on how much you can raise, and because of it he has amassed the largest campaign war chest in history, it's estimated he may even raise as much as $200 million dollars, and that's without an opponent in the primaries. Gov. Dean has raised the most of any of the Democratic candidates, but he doesn't have the kinds of big-money donors Bush has. Bush is getting the bulk of his tens of millions from at best a few thousand people who can afford to donate the current maximum: $2,000. Dean has hundreds of thousands of donors donating app. $50-100 each.
I am a firm believer that fund-raising is an important part of the political process: to me it is an indication of real public support. But the system is obviously skewed towards non-citizens (corporations) and against individual citizens. As I see it, money is its own reward, and it should have as little part in the political process as possible. Raising $15 million dollars from a quarter-million people, as Gov. Dean has done, is a better representation of a candidate's popularity than raising four times that amount from fifty thousand donors, which is Bush's strategy. But with no primary opponent, Bush's campaign will be able to completely control the message, despite the fact that Dean clearly has the financial support of more voters, and of course the number of votes is the most important thing in the end. (more)
This needs to change, and I suggest the following:
- A complete and total ban on all corporate donations. Period.Corporations are not citizens, they are artifical legal entities, and are not entitled to the same rights as citizens
- Complete and full disclosure of all money donated, and how it is spent.
- For Presidential campaigns, no fund-raising until two years before the actual election
Candidates can solicit donations from individuals only*
- No special interest groups or corporations:
- No more than $250** per person
- Individuals can donate up to $250 to candidates, and an additional $250 to political parties, during the primary season. They can donate to as many candidates as they like, and to as many political parties as they like, but they cannot exceed the $250 limit. Any donations to the candidates exceeding this amount must either be returned to the donor by the campaigns, or be placed into a General Fund which will be distributed equally among the winners of all the primaries
- When the primary season is finished, individuals can then donate another $250 to the candidate of their choice, and an additional $250 to a political party. As before, individuals can donate to as many candidates as they like, and to as many political parties as they like, as long as they do not exceed the $250 limit. This will prevent political parties from running phoney candidates so as to circumvent the fund-raising limits.
- No candidate can, above and beyond the $250 limit, donate money to their own campaign
- All monies that remain from losing candidates must either be returned to the donors or placed into the General Fund mentioned above
The same rules would apply to Senatorial and Congressional campaigns, under the following conditions:
- Only money raised from within that state or that Congressional district would be admissible. This would prevent larger, national political organizations from controlling statewide races
- The limits should be lower, say $75 or $100 instead of $250
In addition, I also propose the following:
- Let's establish a set standard as to what does and does not constitute a political party in order to weed out parties and candidates created for the purpose of circumventing fundraising limits
- Repeal of the 1975 FEC "Sun PAC" law that allows corporations to create and fund their own Political Action Committees.
Let's also re-define and rearrange the primary season so that the entire thing doesn't just come down to a couple of days where the bulk of the delegates are chosen. How about this:
- Let's start the whole thing in the east and move progressively westward, which would signify how we colonized the country
- Let's even the whole process out so that each primary week has roughly the same clout as far as choosing delegates. Both of these would help the candidates move across the country and meet as many people as possible, and not just concentrate on the "super" days when the bulk of the delegates are chosen. It would also prevent those with the biggest war chests from dominating and allow a more open forum for all candidates
Let's fix the entire electoral process:
- The States have the responsibility of counting the votes, but the federal government can set standards and help fund upgrades and equipment.
- The secret ballot must be maintained. I've heard people talk about electronic machines issuing receipts, but all that would do is to invite intimidation ("I wanna see that receipt showing you voted for so-and-so, or you're fired/excommunicated, etc.")
Finally, let's put an end to the legalized bribery we call the lobbying system. Lobbyists should be advocates for a particular cause, but their success should be based more on the merits of their arguments, by how they are presented by the lobbies, and by the amount of voters those lobbyists represent, as opposed to who can donate more to the coffers of the candidates.
I suppose I could continue, but the main thing, for me, is to preserve our democratic institutions. Our political process has always been dominated by a small group of wealthy people, and I don't doubt that regardless of what we do, they will continue to have an influence that exceeds their numbers, but we can limit that influence and return government of, by, and for the people to the people.
* I was thinking about saying citizens only, or registered voters only, but I'm not a hundred percent on that. Mostly I want to remove corporations and special interest groups from the process. Another idea I had was for there to be a general fund set up, not unlike the one mentioned above, that would be divided equally and sent to every registered voter in the form of vouchers so that they can either donate it to the candidates or parties of their choice, or, if left unused, have it returned to the general fund. I think this has possibilities, I just don't know how to fund it initially.
** this number is not set in stone, I use it because I think it is a fair number, it's not more than people can afford, and not so high so as too allow corruption.
