There's a certain terror to the life of a Member of Congress that, with all their pomp and pretense, it's easy to miss. This terror is new. No one yet knows precisely how to tame it. And it may ultimately prove to be the single most important motivator to real campaign finance reform.
The terror runs something like this: An incumbent goes into an election, fairly confident about her prospects. Money in the bank, polling in the low sixties, an opponent with little chance to close the gap. Then 30 days out, a super-PAC drops half a million dollars in the district, funding attack ads, and ads that support the challenger. Very quickly, an easy reelection is thrown into doubt.
Incumbents are beginning to recognize this pattern. The most terrifying bit -- in the short term, at least -- is how they are reacting. They can't hope to hold in reserve enough money to respond to such an attack -- funders don't contribute to million dollar surpluses; they send their money to candidates on the edge. Nor can they turn to their largest contributors after the attack begins -- by definition, those contributors have maxed out. There's nothing more they can do.
So the incumbent has but one obvious insurance policy: super-PACs on her own side. To secure the protection the incumbent needs, the incumbent cozies up to the large but independent funders on his or her side, so that if a bomb gets dropped, there's a ready supply of bombs to support the incumbent.
And how do you cozy up to a super-PAC, to guarantee they'll defend you -- "independently," of course -- if terror raises its ugly head? By behaving in the way that super-PAC demands. "We'd love to be able to help you, Senator, but our charter requires that we only support candidates who get 80% or better on our score card." Incumbents thus work hard for good (super-PAC) grades. And like superpowers in a cold war, allegiance is secured with a simple understanding of defense.
This dynamic was first explained to me by former Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN). Bayh was on a panel about campaign finance reform; he was responding to a skeptic's claim that there was no real evidence that money mattered to a Senator's decisions. I left that panel convinced that there was little an incumbent could do to maintain her independence.
Then I met Congressman John Sarbanes.
Sarbanes is a three-term Democrat from Maryland. He is the son of the former Senator, who began his career in the same district. Over a glass of water at a local restaurant, Sarbanes explained to me his idea for super-PAC insurance -- an idea that required no compromise of principle, and indeed, one that would only strengthen the incumbent's support.
The key is small dollar contributors. If Sarbanes had an army of small dollar supporters, then he'd have someone to turn to if he were attacked. Someone who has given $50 in the past is likely to be able to give $50 again, especially in an emergency, especially to protect "her congressman" against an "outsider's attack."
But it's not easy to gather small dollar contributors. Indeed, for congressional races, it almost never makes sense. A single large contributor is worth 100 $50 contributors. Most incumbents thus find it easier to raise from the top down. It takes real discipline to raise from the bottom up.
So Sarbanes has done something that possibly no one else in the history of politics has ever done: He has formally and voluntarily tied himself to a funding structure that forces him to raise small dollar contributions. Sarbanes has established two "challenge funds," both now fully funded. The first fund (worth $500,000) can be drawn upon only when Sarbanes recruits 1,000 small contributors. The second (with $250,000) can be drawn upon only when those contributors have given at least $50,000. Until he hits the 1,000 contributor, and $50,0000 in contributions mark, he can't touch the $750,000 in the funds. But once he does, his campaign will be fully funded -- with super-PAC insurance bundled in for free.
Not many in Congress are likely to follow Sarbanes' lead. His ingenious idea takes real work. But if envy for his independence among Members grows, there is an obviously easier way to get the same protection: proposals like the Fair Elections Now Act, that would amplify the value of small contributions, or as I've proposed, a simple tax rebate in the form of a democracy voucher of $50 per voter, that would flood the field with small dollar contributions. Or even better, a constitutional amendment that limited the ability of super-PACs to drop bombs in the first place. Or even better still, a mix of both small dollar funding legislation and a limit on super-PAC power. Any of these reforms would give Members for free what Sarbanes is working overtime to earn: the independence necessary to be free to lead.
And thus may this innovation turn out to be a story with hope. For the current system is not stable. Until the rise of super-PACs, the system favored the incumbents. Now the incumbents work for the super-PACs. It is a demeaning and demoralizing life for people who like to think highly of themselves and the institution they serve. At some point they will get that they can fix this. Soon after that point, they just might.
Meanwhile, you could support this movement for a Congress "Free to Lead" (as Buddy Roemer puts it) by joining Sarbanes' army. Or at least by thanking him for his idea.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
No person should be able to give more than $50-100 to a candidate. Companies, PACs, SuperPACs, unions and organizations of the sort should not be able to give money at all. If a collective wants to help a candidate, they should volunteer. Nothing else. Get money out of politics.
trolls who vote based on the TV ads they've seen, and know nothing about what's
real. No TV ads (they don't allow them in Europe), no private donations, no corporate
donations, no hanky panky, only publicly funded debates. Oh, also no flyers and letters
begging for donations, and irritating phone calls doing the same. Make it an absolutely
flat and level field and see who wins. We'll have fewer charlatans running for office.
I'm reading Lessig's book. Very revealing. I thought I had a handle on the extent to which our pols are influenced by the sheer growth of campaign money. It's appalling.
The level playing field where every candidate get the same amount of funding and the same air time,
Supposedly, We the People, own the bandwith. So why not establish a campaingn channel funded by limited individual contributions that would grant equal time to candidates. A field of candidates could easily be vetted and the field narrowed by public opinioon as a work in progress. This would also enable qualified individual, enlightened individuals who otherwise would not be able to raise the cash, to have a voice.
A philosoph once said, what we need is a "logic to emotions".
As pertaining to politics, the difficulty the brain has in distinquishing between a real and an imagined idea seems most pronounced among those with the most money.
Legislator's fear labels yet use them strategically, continually and without restraint--they are the product of think tanks. Labels have a chilling effect on problem solving, open-minded thinking and compromise. Today, politicians have a continuing and ongoing need to curry favor with those who give big bucks to get re-elected and the number one way to stay in the game is money--labels mean money.
http://www.chicagonow.com/sheffield-gazette-digital-fish-wrap/2011/12/labels-are-not-a-tool-of-prosperity-2/
Most of the threat from the SuperPACs described above comes from a blizzard of misleading advertising.
If our citizens combined to create an informed, alert, and engaged electorate-
. . then these misleading advertising campaigns would have virtually no effect.
AND IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH EFFECT, we would quickly stop seeing them.
WE HAVE TWO CRITICAL ISSUES AT PLAY
1) A huge block of our adult citizens believes that the US Government can operate on AutoPilot without their attention, or participation. Of course, the government will never run on AutoPilot when it has the ability to dole out huge amounts of money, either directly,
. . or indirectly, in the form of TaxBenefits.
2) There is a block of 30-40% of the public that just supports the Republicans unconditionally, because the Republicans in return, support their intolerant Social Agenda.
A partial answer to (1), and to low voter turnout in general, is to adopt what the Australia, among other countries, does: Make voting mandatory, with penalties for failing to do so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
It won't come anywhere towards completely addressing voter apathy, but if people have to vote to avoid the penalty, they are more likely, on average, to put more time and effort into figuring out which candidate they should support.
Of course, most Republicans would rather succede from the Union than agree to such a plan, but there is nothing keeping individual states from adopting compulsory voting. At least, I don't think so.
IMHO forcing people to vote, when they wouldn't do so otherwise, isn't likely to improve the situation
Saddam's Iraq claimed 100% participation.
The most important factor is that most of those folks are woefully ill-informed OR like the devoted FOX-viewers, are willfully mis-informed.
I would like to think that more enlightened HS Civics education could help along with a focus on daily reading of newspapers and critical-thinking.
BUT I DOUBT THAT WE COULD IMPLEMENT THAT, since any attempt to actually develop a real Critical-Thinking course of instruction would almost certainly devolve into some type of politically correct indoctrination agenda.
MY ONLY REAL HOPE, is that as things keep going from bad, to worse, AND from worse, to even worse still-
Maybe some of the unengaged will begin to pay attention, because it doesn't take much IQ to see that the Republican Agenda is completely bankrupt, and that everytime it has been tried, it has been a disaster.
the repugs form the a$$holocrat party.
Would the $750,000 be used by a Sarbanes friendly Super-PAC or does is go directly to his campaign?
If to his campaign, what provision makes this legal under current law?
thought it was something about the average person in the country just would not be informed well enough to put good people into office..
look right now at what the gop has put forth..it is a clown show....yet people still think they are worthy...
I didnt think obama was worthy...so I didnt vote...but obama looks like a scholar next to these clowns..
I dont see good coming for the USA...sadly
It wasn't until after the Civil War that Black Males were guaranteed(on paper) the right to vote.
(note it wasn't until the mid 1960s with the Voting Rights Act, that this right was guaranteed by enforcable law, rather than on paper)
Women's Suffrage wasn't guaranteed until the 19th Amendment in 1920
And US Senators were not directly elected by the voters under the original provisions of the US Constitution. Per the Constitution, US Senators were to be "chosen by state legislatures".
This didn't change until the 17th Amendment in 1913.
But you either don't know what you're talking about, or you are just promoting a disinformation campaign,
WE CAN AGREE ON THIS= Money doesn't DIRECTLY BUY any votes.
What money in Politics does, is INFLUENCE the outcome of elections.
We disagree on the intelligence of the electorate, many studies have shown fairly conclusively that misleading negative advertising does sway the results of elections.
YES I AM IMPLYING THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF THE VOTERS ARE BRAINWASHED BY MISLEADING, AND FALSE ADVERTISING.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, the BIG DOLLAR CONTRIBUTORS believe this as well, otherwise they wouldn't be throwing their money into these operations.
I'm not saying that the hypnotized voters who are swayed by misleading advertising "don't have any ideals".
What I'm suggesting is that their ignorance and susceptibility to misleading ad campaigns is a stronger factor, than any so-called ideals.
NOTE= this isn't my explanation for why TEA-Zombies vote Republican despite the fact that according to what they tell pollsters-
is against their economic interests and desires
TEA-Zombies provide almost unqualified support for the Republicans, because,
. . in return, the Republicans support THEIR intolerant Social Agendas, which is more important to them.
Hear me out. If we ban campaign funding as it now exists, it's kind of like banning drugs or automatic weapons. People who want them will find ways to get them. High-dollar interest groups will find new ways to influence campaigns and policy.
What Sarbanes (and Roemer) are advocating here is as free-market as it gets... a competitive alternative. By choosing to play by the rules most voters consider to be fair and right, they're appealing to the voters in a genuine way.
It would be like if a Wal-Mart competitor sprung up that chose to re-balance profits in a way that compensated non-executive personnel at higher rates while foregoing some executive compensation and profit voluntarily. This new competitor would be the obvious choice for consumers because of the stigma attached to Wal-Mart, all other aspects being equal.
So while I think we'll ultimately need legislation to limit campaign contributions and increase the transparency of political finance, this sort of strategy should seriously be considered by politicians at all levels who want to distance themselves from the stench of current campaign finance norms.
otherwise, we, the people, will continue to be confused and will play the role of roll-over-rover...
truth is the best disinfectant and we haven't had that since back in prez. kennedy's days...just sayin