Atrios writes:
There's a strain of elitism which is concerned about the power of money, but not so concerned about the power of... elites, or at least the right kind of elites. It was truly freaky coming in contact with people who were genuinely concerned that ordinary people could one day (this was pre-You Tube) make political videos! And people on the internets could watch them! And this must be regulated because... well just because!
Atrios and I came into contact with them at the same time -- fighting "reformer" efforts to destroy political blogging because, as he says, people might make videos! (For real, that's no exaggeration.) They were freaked out that Haliburton might start a blog! (No joke, again.) They were outraged at the thought that regular people might advocate for political candidates! (I wish I was exaggerating.)
As Duncan said, it was elitism. Witness the execrable Carol Darr, who used to run the Institute of Politics, the Internet and Democracy at George Washington University until she was finally pushed out by their board.
The ramifications of the bloggers' demand are enormous. The issue before the FEC goes to the heart of the fundamental questions that define a democracy's relationship to a free press: Who should be treated as a journalist, and what special privileges, if any, should they receive?
It was literally about "special privileges", who had them, and who was to be kept on the outside. Darr above was talking about classifying bloggers as "media", as if that wasn't the easiest call in the world. (The "media exemption" in FEC regulations isn't called the "journalism exemption", and that's not a nuanced distinction.)
And that's what CFR has become -- a tool to keep people out.
Have any of you looked into running for office? The regulations that control a candidacy are so complex and onerous that it necessarily requires high-priced legal assistance to navigate successfully. If you can't afford a lawyer from the first day of your campaign, don't bother applying. And tell me, who exactly is it that can afford expensive legal help from day one? Not your average Joe or Jane. So right off the bat, the regulations have excluded most of the riff raff. The elite love it.
Second of all, CFR requires all sorts of "firewalls" between campaign committees, party committees, state, local and federal party committees, and outside groups. "Coordination" is more often a sin than a virtue, sure to bring down the wrath of the law. It's so absurd, that party committees like the DCCC have to firewall parts of their building so people can't come into contact with each other, depending on where and how they're spending their dollars.
Why is this a problem? In a sane system, if someone conducts a poll on a race, it should be shared by everyone involved. Field staff, administrative staff, state, local and federal parties, the campaigns, and even outside groups should all be able to talk to each other and ensure there is no duplication of effort. With less duplication, you need less money. And isn't "less money" the holy grail of the so-called reformers?
Finally, there's the boneheaded belief that money is inherently evil, and thus getting rid of it is the highest purpose. The problem, of course, isn't money, it's the source of the money and the ability of money to corrupt government. That fear is obviously real.
The original solution, embodied by campaign finance efforts, was to eliminate money from politics. It seemed like a noble goal, but over 30 years after first enacted, CFR has been an abject failure. Big money continues to find ways to enter and corrupt the system. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech (and it is, no matter how much that may rankle many of you), and as such, drastic restrictions in its political application are limited. I used to be a huge CFR supporter, but it requires ideological rigidity (the likes we see on the Right) to continue pretending that CFR is a valid solution to the problem. Reality has shown, quite clearly, that it simply does not work.
But there is another solution -- people-powered campaigns. That $20 or $100 contribution that we send candidates buy us no special access. It doesn't guarantee that our pork is inserted in the latest appropriations bill. It may make politicians more responsive to us as a community, but responsiveness is not the same as buying our way into the system. Being heard is not the same as using the government to financially reward our private business dealings. (There is no "Bloggers Tax Relief Act of 2008" on the books.)
So one would think that Obama's millions of small dollar supporters are a good thing -- they lessen his dependence on corrupting big-money contributers and has allowed him to swear off PAC contributions and cut lobbyists out of the picture. This financial independence has given him governing independence -- no industry or interest group will be able to hold his agenda hostage.
But, and here we go full circle, this financial independence has a cost -- millions of regular people are now participating in the process. Organic farmers from Montana and grizzled combat vets and authors from Virginia are winning elections against establishment favorites on the strength of people-powered campaigns. John McCain, best friend to the elite "reformer" community, is under assault from who?
In a world obsessed over who gets "special privileges", the rise of the people-powered movement is a nightmare. Their carefully constructed yet nonsensical and oftentimes contradictory regulations are increasingly obsolete. Regular people can fund their favorite candidates while commenting on those races on blogs and social networking sites and email groups and myriad other places on- and offline.
The CFR regime is increasingly anachronistic, but still problematic. Its exclusion of people from the system and ridiculous restrictions on coordination between various political entities do nothing to keep big money out of politics, and oftentimes exacerbates the problem.
It's still time to rewrite the CFR laws from scratch with one foundational principle, as Adam B once wrote:
What I want out of a functioning CFR is an acknowledgement that speech costs money, but that we don't want the source of that money to distort electoral outcomes. The existing distribution of wealth and success should not determine who gets to win elections by overwhelming citizens' ability to decide on their own.
Comments are closed on this story.