Holistic Politics: Real Campaign Finance Reform

By Carl Milsted

On December 10, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment is no longer in effect. They ruled that Congress can indeed pass laws to arrest people who publish criticisms of Congress’ performance, the “democratic” equivalent of lese majesty.

Of course, that is not what was reported. What was reported was that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was declared to be Constitutional. But since BCRA decrees that citizens groups cannot run issue ads in the 60 days leading up to a general election this is a violation of their right to speak and print what they believe. They cannot even publish the voting records of sitting congressmen – even publish such records without editorial comment on whether such votes were good or bad!

Oh sure, some may say that free speech is not about money. But freedom of the press is and always has involved money. Printing and distributing newspapers and pamphlets have always cost money. With BCRA, you have to be part of the established media to print critiques of the new aristocracy. Ad hoc news is now illegal. Political pamphleteering is now strictly regulated. Welcome to the end of our great republic. It was a nice experiment while it lasted.

“But don’t we need campaign finance reform?” many might ask. “We need to keep the big corporations and lobbying organizations from controlling elections!” There is some truth to these worries, but BCRA was the wrong solution.

In fact, limiting campaign donation size to candidates was the wrong solution – at least applied by itself. Like it or not, it takes significant money to communicate to a large congressional district. By limiting individual donations, you limit the number of viable candidates who can get their message out. The field narrows more quickly. Or we get stuck with wealthy candidates who can self-finance. And wealthy contributors can still have clout since wealthy people have wealthy friends they can introduce to the candidate.

How about public financing? Finance who? Just Democrats and Republicans? How about the Greens? The Libertarians? The Nazis? Lyndon LaRouche? Who is worthy of receiving campaign monies? The government needs to make a decision on whom to fund. The result is a government that selects its own candidates; i.e., an autocracy.

Total spending limitations look good on paper until you realize two things. First, such limitations boost the power of the media establishment. Second, such limitations boost the power of incumbents dramatically. Incumbents get an immense amount of free publicity in the form of news stories about their performance, largesse they hand out to special interests, and free mail (for U.S. Congressmen).

So how do we prevent wealthy special interests from effectively bribing Congressmen through donations while at the same time preserving freedom of speech and of the press, and providing real competition on Election Day? Well, here is Carl Milsted’s Cave Man Approach to Campaign Reform:
If you are holding elective office, you cannot run for office, and you cannot raise money. Period.

Yep, I know this is pretty radical, but it gets the job done and it doesn’t require 10 pounds of paper to describe. Once you are elected to office, you are a servant of the people. As such you have no business accepting bribes, even if they are called “campaign contributions.” This includes raising money for other candidates. You are a politician when running for office. Once in, it is time to be a statesman.

Note that this is not the same thing as “Term Limits.” If you want to serve ten terms as Congressman under my system you can – but you have to serve a term as private citizen in between each congressional term.

My reform levels the playing field dramatically. No longer does a challenger have to challenge a sitting office holder who can use a government office with which to publicize his campaign. All seats are open every time. No longer will there be entrenched incumbents who hold on by virtue of their seniority and ability to bring home pork. People might actually pay attention to races other than the presidential race since these now become real competitive races. A return to grassroots democracy becomes possible.

Some might object to a legislature filled with amateurs. They will claim that people serving a single term will lack a long term perspective to governance.

To this I cry “Nonsense!” The current batch of aristocrats who run Congress has run up trillions of debt. They have shut their eyes to the huge Social Security obligation that is coming up soon. As aristocrats, they do not truly live under the laws that they pass. The country can sink under debt and they will still be sitting pretty with their generous pensions with guaranteed cost of living adjustments.
Representatives who would automatically be private citizens after one term would have a much different perspective on governance. Such representatives would see the world from the citizens’ perspective. They would ask, “What laws do I want to live under?” instead of, “What kind of country do I want to rule?”

It is time to retire the aristocrats who have trampled upon the First Amendment. It is time to return power to The People by putting members of The People in power.

Dr. Carl S. Milsted, Jr. is a Senior Editor of The Free Liberal and the author of holisticpolitics.org. By day, Milsted is a physicist who writes software for national defense related applications. He hopes to eventually move on to the more interesting and lucrative field of Mad Science.