There may be a problem with the influence of "special interests" in politics, and by that I mean that those benefiting from government services and spending who are making contributions to elected officials are representing an ever-growing portion of the funds that these officeholders and seekers receive in their campaigns.
But that having been said, the solution to the problem is not to set up government prohibitions against these interest groups expressing their freedom of speech (one of the ways you exercise this right is by giving your money to candidates and causes). In fact, under the United States Constitutions, many such bans are constitutional. I would even argue that some of the bans that exist now are not constitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court has rightfully made it clear that no laws can prohibit a candidate from spending freely of their own money in running for office — meaning that all of the restrictions (such as those embodied in the horrific McCain-Feingold federal limits) serve to severely ’tilt’ the playing field in favor of those who can self-fund their own campaigns.
Then there is this movement to not only restrict from where candidates can receive funds, but when. The latest in this category is a proposal by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to create a period of time during budget negotiations in Sacramento when candidates are prohibited from raising money. I have not spoken with the Governor on this, but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his proposal is being made with the best of intentions. But it is flawed nevertheless. First and foremost, it is once again based on the idea of restricting free speech rights by trying to keep Americans from making political donations wherever and whenever they want. But it also ignores the idea that the ‘free market’ of political giving means that the funds will find a way of being donated even if the law is passed. Except, like with McCain-Feingold, the result will be that it will make politics less transparent as it then becomes virtually impossible to figure out who is giving money to whom.
Florida has a part-time legislature, which is generally in session only two or three months of the year (half of that are just "Committee Weeks" where there is work done, but no legislative session). They placed a ban on legislative fundraising during their session there. Guess what? This led to a significant growth in the coordination between Democrats and Republicans in the Florida legislature and their respective political parties. The receptions and cocktail parties did not end, they just now require a donation to the Republican/Democrat Party of Florida.
If we truly want to reform the system, we don’t want to lesson the role of money in politics, we actually want to increase it. You see, if we could get every voting adult in California, or even better yet, America, to have a $25 a year budget for political donations — this amount of money would eclipse the ‘special interest’ dollars in campaigns. Of course, we could also help reduce the money that comes from these special interests the old fashioned way — but not giving them what they want. If our politicians would look to a truly limited government that did not seek to favor one group at the expense of another — that would have a chilling effect on special interest dollars being doled out.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
This is a silly idea. All the fundraisers have to do is move their campaigns back a few weeks. They’ll get the same donations. After that will the Govenor try to restrict fundraising the month or several months before the budget process?