Commentary on Demand

                                    Editorials by Request

                                             Fuel your discussions

                        Campaign Finance       21 Jan 10

According to news reports, today the Supreme Court basically gutted campaign finance law making it possible for all the special interest groups to spend unlimited amount of funds to say whatever it is they think will trick you into voting for a person that will give them more money. I believe the news report is generally accurate. But the part I don't really understand is - how is this much different than it was yesterday?  One difference I see is that now these special interest groups aren't required to do acrobatics to pretend they haven't been funding the campaigns.  They may still try to hide it but that would be for public relations reasons and not because they were breaking the law.  Another difference and the greatest benefit of the Supreme Court ruling is it gives the public an excuse to ask for different and innovative Campaign Finance laws.  On proposal I heard from the Republican side was to make sure that every means for influencing an election is cataloged.  If someone implements any of the means to influence an election then full disclosure of the money source would be required.  This is a good idea. I write today because I would like to see two other objectives met once the new campaign finance rules are adapted:  First I would like a system designed to broadcast  more ideas at a audible level.  Second I would like to see a system that dampens the effectiveness of publicizing misinformation.

If you've read much of my writing you will notice that even though I consider myself financially conservative, I don't consider the word "Taxes" as profane.  Nor do I believe the government has no role in providing governance.  That is why I can propose a government access program for supplementing campaigns of federal office seekers funded by a tax on all campaign contributions by private organizations and individuals.  Simply put take a portion of every donation put it into a general fund and distribute the general fund to the candidates in an equitable manner.  This can be done in a number of different ways.  I went through one possibility in my original article. Ten years later my thought is about the same although I think I would execute that particular program with a couple of differences.  One of the problems with my original proposals is that in Ohio, and I assume other states, the most signatures they will except for a primary nomination to the U.S. House of Representatives is 150.  My idea of partitioning the public funds based on the number of nominating signatures probably isn't the best way to ensure a reasonable distribution of the public funds if a candidate only has to get 150 signatures to be eligible for the maximum distribution.  So I still believe in the basic concepts:  Let everyone and every agency and every special interest group contribute as much as they want to a campaign (either directly to the candidates committee or direct buys of advertisements).  Take as much as 33% of the contribution, place it into a general fund and then distribute that fund in a manner that allows all candidates to get some of the general fund.  The part that has to be worked out again is how to make that distribution so that: 1.  A viable, reasonable person is not eliminated from the election because another candidate goes "all in" with a larger stack of money used to unjustly vilify the lesser candidate.  After all we're not playing 1890's poker. and 2.  The funds generally go in a bigger proportion to those candidates most likely to have or gain the support of the electorate.  That is the point isn't to put the fringe candidates on an equal monetary footing with more legitimate candidates.  Therefore, I still think much of my original article is applicable and I recommend you read it if you haven't already.

Another idea I had today would be to require TV stations that accept political advertisements to charge enough per add so that for every 4 minutes of nominee, party, corporation or union spots they air they are also paid to provide 1 minute toward an evening broadcast of a program that gives each nominee an equal chance to promote their candidacy.  These political broadcast should occur in relationship and with a frequency to when the privately paid for adds originally air.  For instance if in one specific week a television station plays 120 minutes worth of commercials designed to influence a Congressional race then during that same week the station should schedule a 30 minute time slot where each of the candidates gets an equal time to utilize for their campaign.  This program could be done in a number of different formats and may even change weekly.  The important part would be that the candidates generally get to control the content.  For instance the station may do something as simple as give one candidate the first 10 minutes, a second candidate the second 10 minutes and a third candidate the last 10 minutes.  Perhaps they would provide a format where the station has a newsman do a question and answer for the ten minutes.  In this format though it would be important that candidate be involved with and improve the question selection.  Remember the public minutes are here so a candidate gets the opportunity to present their agenda.  This wouldn't be the forum for the reporter to inject a the other sides partisan points.  I think it is a good idea to count debates toward the stations requirement as long as the debate is set up to allow all candidates.

My initial reaction to the news story about the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law was to wonder how the court became such an activist agent for one political agenda.  But it doesn't take much thought to come to the realization they provided an opportunity and an excuse to fix a system that is presently incapable of promoting the candidates best suited to represent the best interest of the electorate. 

Article Index page             Home               Contact