One of the most ingenious ideas in campaign finance reform that I've come across is the Donation Booth, by Ian Ayres (of Why Not? fame) and Jeremy Bulow. They propose a system whereby all political donations would be completely anonymous, so that there could be no be no possible quid pro quo for contributions. You should read the idea in the original as well as the commentary on it scattered throughout the web, but the basic idea is that it would be as impossible to prove that you donated to a political campaign as it would be to prove that you voted for the candidate.
The problem with the idea is that it is simply too powerful. It would effectively end the lobbying industry as we know it, so we can be sure that the lobbyists will never let it pass. It's been years since it was first proposed, and not much progress has been made. I therefore propose a watered down version of the idea, which would still greatly improve matters. Instead of mandating anonymous donations, set up a system to allow anonymous donations. Both options should be made available to all donors.
Right now if someone wishes to donate to a political campaign, they must make a public donation. For some though this can be a big problem. Let's say someone who works at a coal plant wishes to donate to a pro-environmental candidate. This public donation may cost him his job. If someone wishes to support a candidate because he believes in her positions, and not because he expects favors in return, allow him to donate to her campaign in a manner so that no one - including the candidate herself - will be able to know about it.
This idea should be supported on free speech and privacy grounds. I should be able to support my candidate without having to publicly reveal my identity.
Once this idea is in place though, it will lessen - though not end - public political donations. The media always make a big deal about how much money each political candidate has raised. It is a measure of how much support they have among the public. If this mechanism is in place though, the media would report both how much public money each candidate had raised and how much anonymous money each candidate has raised. If candidate A has raised more public money while candidate B has raised more anonymous money, candidate B will blast candidate A for being in the pocket of special interests. Everyone will quickly realize that as much as their public donations help, their anonymous ones are far more effective for the candidate, since they provide him with political cover. All those who support a candidate because they believe in her positions and not simply because they are seeking special favors, will quickly learn to donate privately. The only ones who will continue to make public donations will be those who need favors in return. Candidates will encourage people to donate anonymously, but if the system is set up properly there will be no way for them to know for certain who donated, and so there would be no clear incentive to reward those who claimed to donate.
The beauty of this proposal is that it can be pursued on civil rights grounds. Campaign finance reform makes peoples eyes glaze over. They know the system is corrupt, and they know the corruption will always be there. Privacy and freedom though are still rallying calls. You should be able to donate to the candidate of your choice without the fear of retribution from your boss and angry stares from your friends and neighbors. If the public won't know about it, it's only fair that the candidate won't know about it either. That this system will thereby create a PR headache for a politician looking to sell favors for political donations is simply a bonus.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
It's funny. I first had this idea over a year ago, but I only got around to typing it up and posting it last week. Earlier today, I happened to see an article in the NY Times entitled Street Maps in Political Hues from May 20 - the same day as my posting - which highlighted the fear some people have that their political contributions are a matter of public record on the web, and how that can hurt them socially or even economically. Websites such as www.Fundrace.org,www.opensecrets.org. www.politicalmoneyline.com, and www.fec.gov can discourage people from donating to the candidate they support. (The article made things seem a tad worse than they are though by leaving out the $200 rule.) A strong privacy case should made to allow these people to keep their anonymity, as long no one - including the candidate herself - would know their identity.
I searched a bit, and did not see this particular hybrid proposed before. (While I did not yet read "Voting for Dollars", I believe it goes in a different direction.) While Ayres/Bulow did propose giving each candidate the choice on how she would like to be funded - anonymously or publicly - that was an attempt to shame politicians to forgo all public donations, which is a situation that politicians would never agree to put themselves in. Focusing on giving individuals the right to choose how they want to support their candidate is a much more promising approach. It also solves the major area of complaint leveled at the original Ayres/Bulow idea. You would no longer have to block every conceivable way in which individuals can support candidates without making an outright financial contribution. Under the hybrid system you would only have to make sure that such alternative contributions are fully disclosed to the public, which is something that our laws should be ensuring anyway.
When I proposed this same idea about 5 years ago to my congressman, he said, "Who'd give?" Wouldn't it be great if fewer people gave so that candidates couldn't afford huge ad campaigns aimed at smearing their opponents?
The key to making this work is to absolutely protect donor's anonymity while making public the running total of a candidate's campaign account. That way those who care about a given race would know when financial support is needed, which is only fair.
Since we cannot stop people from whispering in a candidate's ear about having made a newly recorded donation, encourage lying. That way as soon as $50,000 shows up in the candidate's account, everybody could claim responsibility.
BAD IDEA. Corporations currently pervert our system where people are not even recognized as the benefactor of our political system; corporations benefit, not people.
Ethically Eliminate ALL Political Corruption:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn2?p=43
A similar system can work here in the United States and elsewhere in the world:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn?p=57
If a corporation tells a candidate behind closed doors that a contribution of $4 million dollars is going to be made to his party, and then the money shows up shortly thereafter, it's the same political pandering going on now.