Podcaster and gadfly Dan Carlin has a very interesting answer to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Carlin believes, and I have to admit he is right, that, constitutionally, Citizens United was correctly decided. The way, Dan thinks, to prevent a few megaphones from overwhelming everyone else's voices in the public square, is a simple one. It appears to be constitutional to require parties to disclose the names and amounts of their donors. Therefore, you let parties raise whatever monies they wish. However, you give government matching funds to the other parties so that they may spend on the same level. You're not limiting anyone's speech-you're just making sure everyone can speak at the same volume. Third parties? Let's say anyone who receives more than 1% of the vote in a Federal election gets the same funds. So the Democrats raise $500 million, and the Republicans raise $450 million. So the Republicans get $50 million, and so does the Green Party, and the Constitution Party, and the Independent Party.
Carlin's proposal limits the appeal of corporate donations-why give money to the President when you know his opponent gets the same amount. dollar for dollar.
Cost too much? How much is wasteful Federal spending on bailouts and subsidies now?
This is impossible, of course-just like health reform, there are too many well entrenched interests who are passionately involved in keeping things exactly as they are.
Good food for thought, though, as always.
"However, you give government matching funds to the other parties so that they may spend on the same level."
ReplyDeleteI'm dead set against this as I read it. I hope I did not misread. But it's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, and I'll be damned before I give any money to support Pat Buchanan's campaign. Or fill in the name of any other villified candidate. Supporting candidates should be a free choice.
"Cost too much? How much is wasteful Federal spending on bailouts and subsidies now?"
The "As long as we're wasting money elsewhere, we might as well waste it here" idea results only in more waste.
David Broder's recent column shows some interesting ideas from the Dems to attempt to limit the impact of the ruling. And guess what: I think most of the ideas are worth consideration.
"This is impossible, of course-just like health reform, there are too many well entrenched interests..."
Such as those who don't want any more flagrant waste of government money, and those who believe supporting political candidates should be a personal choice (as opposed to forcing people to pay taxes to support government-approved candidates). It's a well-entrenched interest, alright: the public interest.
Like you, I don't want to pay for Pat Buchanan (or, in my case, Sarah Palin) to spread their message. But there's lots of things I don't want to pay for that I do-highways I'll never drive on, museums I'll never visit, Social Security I'll never get. But government isn't a cafeteria.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the end product is more speech, from more sources, I think that fulfills the First Amendment brilliantly. I think it was Alan Dershowitz who once said that the answer to hateful speech is not speech codes, but more and better speech.
But again-the pay for play system is wasting your money NOW on boondoggles and subsidies and missle defenses that dont. By getting the corporate money out, you wind up saving money overall-this spending would be a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking.
But, like I say, it's impossible. Politicians aren't going to vote to cut their own throats.
Carlin had another fascinating idea, one that he got from Oregon state politics: they made it legal to give gifts to politicians-they just made it illegal for them to accept anything-thus neatly sidestepping the free speech issue.
Do you see any difference between government funding roads, and government picking and choosing which candidates (and political messages) are government-approved, and thus worthy of funding?
ReplyDeleteIt sort of completes and short-circuits the political system, making into one where the we end up with a ruling politburo that chooses who is worthy or not to be let into the politburo.
It also brings in a huge amount of govenment-controlled speech, taking the nation one step closer to those totalitarian systems with government and control over media and speech in the nation.
As for the last part about Carlin and accepting gifts, what does that have to do with free speech?
Well, the legislature found that they couldn't restrict a lobbyist's freedom to give things to a legislator-that is that lobbyist's expression of approval towards the legislator's conduct, and thus protected speech.
ReplyDeleteBut they could restrict the legislator's ability to recieve the gift, which is, if nothing else, clever.
Well, under the system Carlin suggests (which, again, is never, ever going to happen)-if the Republicans outraise Democrats by $50 million, the DNC gets $50 million. But the brilliant part is that anyone who polls, let's say 1% nationally, in a Federal election, gets the $50 million too. What could the Green Party do with $50 million? Or the Independent Party? Or some sort of Tea Party Party? That's more speech, and more of it, and more of it. Maybe we get a House member from the Green Party, and one or two from a Tea Party. Pretty soon, you have blocs like in European countries, and you can't have party line votes on ANYTHING. And maybe, dare to dream, a serious Presidential campaign from a third party?
ReplyDeleteAgain, never going to happen, but pretty to think so.