Bribing Congress

Politicians, like most every person, act largely in their own self-interest. When they do, it takes the form of them trying to preserve their jobs or set themselves up for election to a higher office. I don't begrudge politicians for acting this way, either. Although it's rarely a conscious thought, I know that one of my top goals at work is to not get fired.

The biggest problem, however, is how politicians can best ensure their reelection. In 93% of all races, the person who raises the most money wins the election. Members of Congress aren't ignorant of this fact, and spend their time accordingly:

One can’t understand the dysfunction of the contemporary Senate, stresses Daschle, without understanding the deranged state of American political fund-raising. It’s a massive, Sisyphean distraction, a slog into which senators pour thousands of hours that could be spent reading, negotiating, or talking to constituents. And some of this time-consuming process has been the direct result of various campaign-finance reforms themselves. Lawmakers can’t make fund-raising phone calls from their Senate offices, for example, “which means you have to uproot yourself, go to your political office, go vote, and then go dial for more dollars again,” says Daschle. “That’s almost a daily occurrence.” He estimates that today’s lawmakers spend at least 10 percent of their time fund-raising. As their elections draw near, he says, the number climbs to 40.

Members of Congress spend so much time raising money because they know that that is their ticket to reelection. They need to raise that money to pay for advertising. As Al Gore aptly put it in The Assault on Reason:

The inherent value or validity of political propositions put forward by candidates for office is now largely irrelevant compared with the image-based advertising campaigns they use to shape the perceptions of voters. And the high cost of these commercials has radically increased the role of money in American politics--and the influence of those who contribute it.

If raising money is the key to getting reelected, then members of Congress are wise to keep those who donate the most money happy. To maximize their chances at keeping their job, they do the logical thing--vote the way their donors pay them to vote. The larger the donation, the greater the chance that the politician will do everything they can to make the donor pleased with their work. If people bundle max donations and also donate to the national, state, and local parties, their influence grows. If donors use a corporation or PAC to run their own ads of support outside of the campaign finance laws they can inject even more money into the campaign system.

This scenario makes campaign donations de facto bribes. What is the difference between someone giving their Congressman money to vote a certain way and giving the money to his political campaign? In either case the member of Congress owes his benefactor a favor in exchange for helping him get paid.

I don't get upset at politicians when they act in a manner that hurts the country but helps their corporate sponsors. They are simply saying what they are paid to say. They are only voting the way they are paid to vote.

There is no doubt that he who pays the piper will always call the tune. In this way, the root of all political problems in this country is campaign finance. Politician who are supported by the health insurance industry will work against real, comprehensive health insurance reform. Those who are paid to support the banking industry will do everything they can to make sure that Wall Street is unregulated and profitable. When a politician is given cash from the defense industry, they are far less likely to support any sort of Defense spending reform.

Given that politicians will always be beholden to those who pay their campaign bills, the question we should ask is "Who do we want them to be indebted to?" The answer, I believe, should be the general public. Influence should not be won based on how much money people can contribute; It should be won based on how many votes are cast.

What we need is a campaign finance system that puts a premium on the number of supporters a candidate has, not on the wealth of the supporters. My dream campaign finance system would involve:

1) A primary season using IRV where top two vote getters, regardless of party, move on to the general election. The top X number of candidates are funded through government grants equal to Y dollars per person in the election district. Political parties are forbidden from spending money on the primary phase of the election. Candidate viability can be determined by petition signatures or by getting a certain number of small-dollar donations. Small-dollar donations can be allowed.

2) In the general election, the top two candidates move on in a traditional, first-past-the-post system. Donations per person are capped at $250 per person per candidate. Donations to and from political parties are similarly limited.

3) Corporations are forbidden from buying advertisements that mention a candidate, party, or election. Issue ads are forbidden within 90 days of a primary or general election.

There are some proposals in Congress that are worth supporting that don't go quite as far. The Fair Election Now Act, for example, would give government grants that match small donations 4:1.

To kick off the next push for campaign finance reform, however, we'd need a Constitutional Amendment that gives Congress the explicit power to regulate campaign finance issues. The Citizens United ruling has thrown Congress's power on this issue into doubt, so only a Constitutional Amendment will suffice. Chris Dodd's proposed amendment is a great start that would give Congress broad powers to take campaign finance reform in a number of directions:

SECTION1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on—

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on—

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I do realize that this would only be the first step. Making Congress use these powers against the wishes of their corporate sponsors would be difficult, but giving them these powers in the first place is a must.

Our campaign finance system often feels like an old boat that's continually springing a new leak. No matter how much we patch it, we find that we're still taking on water. The solution isn't to keep on plugging up the holes; The solution is to buy a new boat.

Bribing Congress