| The Incomplete Diagnosis
Lessig's presentation admirably exposes the sheer size of corporate expenditures in lobbying (labor expenditures apparently amount to something like 2% of all lobbying expenditures in Washington, DC). As has been ably pointed out by other commentators, just the annual profits of Exxon outpace all spending in the Obama-McCain race by more than 20:1. Throwing corporate money in to influence elections creates truly incredible opportunities manipulate outcomes, intimidate incumbents, and buy friends. Worst of all, many of these actions can be easily undertaken on low-profile votes or at levels of government where little attention is paid but where opportunities for profit are huge.
Forget Exxon for a second (well, don't forget them, because they're dangerous) and think instead about the checkbooks of defense contractors who have their livelihoods to defend literally by ensuring a continued flow of money into the military-industrial complex.
Bottom-line -- there should be no doubt that there are powerful corporate interests who wish to influence the outcomes of elections and public policy debates by spending huge sums of money on electioneering and advocacy. But let's not fool ourselves. These interests are smart enough to operate beyond just Election Day. They are, as a friend of mine would say, in business year round.
They're the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine and PERC, etc., etc. They're the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They're Americans for Prosperity, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, etc.
Lessig makes a damn good point in his presentation that the fundamental danger of the corporate enterprise is the ability of big spenders to basically use money convince the American people by means of manufactured debates in the media that the existence of human-caused global warming is in dispute. But let's be plain. The American people weren't misled on this because of corporate spending in elections. And limiting corporate spending in elections and simply enabling non-bought candidates to campaign won't remove the staged debate within the public sphere.
It will, in short, be the same as it ever was.
The Inadequate Cure
Lately, when I hear advocates talk about the curative power of public financing, I have to admit I become deeply skeptical. It isn't because I oppose public financing. I think it is a great idea. I think candidates spending less time on phones and more time talking to voters and studying policy will result in a better country, at least on the margins. And I think that the opportunity of public financing will encourage some people to run who wouldn't otherwise run and some of them will win. And I even think that public financing will occasionally make a race competitive and allow for a better person to win a difficult campaign than would happen without public financing.
But I don't think we'll see a revolution in terms of the outcomes. States have passed public financing of elections, so have municipalities. Their governing bodies don't tend to go from 0 to populated by angelic geniuses in a matter of a few elections.
As a result, the promise of public financing often reminds me of the promise of honk-and-waves or yard signs. Candidates for office who don't want to work hard tell people that they have a different idea of how to win -- one that does not involve raising money or talking to a helluva lot of voters. These candidates run and generally they lose.
Because in politics, there aren't short cuts. There are ways to run without big money, but it requires running with small money. But money ain't victory. History is littered with competitive elections where the candidate who spent less won the race. It's also full of candidates who lost and blamed the cashflow for the situation -- an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if ever there was one.
The Other Path to Change
The good news then is that there are other methods to win. The bad news is that they're really hard. For the most part, they mean working hard for a series of years, knocking a ton of doors, dialing for dollars, motivating volunteers, handling coalitions, etc., etc.
But part of the reason I know it is possible is that we've got a ton of people who have done it in Montana: Jon Tester, Ken Toole, Gail Gutsche, Denise Juneau, Christine Kaufmann, Carol and Pat Williams, Kevin Furey, and scores of others. None of these are folks with whom I agree all the time -- and there are a bunch of others who also deserve recognition. But what these folks have in common is that a combination of intelligence, political judgment, and hard work has turned them into public servants who actually make the public proud.
In Oregon, my friend Jefferson Smith and a number of his colleagues have helped do some really big things in the statehouse despite being relative newcomers.
There are good people elected every cycle -- Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, etc. And these people's elections make real differences. Community Health Centers are getting real help in the health care bill because Bernie Sanders has been a smart and committed public servant. States will have options to consider alternatives to reform as it stands because Ron Wyden is a U.S. Senator. And we've got a health care bill period because of Barack Obama's and Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's and, yes, Max Baucus's tenacity.
None of us is perfect, but every time we elect better advocates to public office and run campaigns that teach more volunteers to knock doors and raise money, we all win. And sometimes, we even get victories, like the recent victory of students over banks with the student aid provisions in the reconciliation bill -- provisions that even Lessig gave a shout to via Twitter (he also noted a couple other great folks I've referenced).
I've only been out on doors three times this year. That number needs to get bigger. I've also only been donating about 10% of my salary to candidates and organizations that will strengthen the state. That number can't get much bigger while I'm still struggling out of debt.
But that's the reality of what it takes to make change happen -- more doors, more dollars, and more candidates with the brains, integrity, and work ethic to make it happen. |
