How to Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform-Daily Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 55

Capitalism Magazine ^ | 10/11/99 | Edwin A. Locke

[Valin]

How to Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform: Have a Government That Can't Sell "Public Interest" Favors

Summary: Only when Congressmen have no special favors to sell will lobbyists stop trying to buy their votes -- and their souls.

Congress is once again addressing the issue of campaign finance reform -- and no wonder. The American public has become increasingly disgusted by the unprincipled manner in which our legislative process is conducted. The process, in essence, consists of swarms of lobbyists descending like locusts on Washington, demanding special favors in return for campaign contributions. “Wealthy special-interest groups,” and the money they wield, are accused of being the ultimate culprits in this mess, and, it is asserted, Congress must rein them in.

Such reform cannot and will not work, because it targets the wrong culprit. “Moneyed interests” are not the real problem; they are only symptoms of a deeper cause. The corruption is caused not by material wealth but by spiritual poverty. The root cause is not “bad money” but a bad idea, namely the concept of the “public interest.”

Let us see how the premise of the “public interest” operates in practice. Imagine that you are an honest, idealistic congressman just elected to office. On your first day, you are accosted by four lobbyists. The first demands a tariff increase on certain imports to “protect” his group's industry -- which, he claims, serves the public. The second lobbyist asserts that it will benefit the public if his group gets a subsidy to help its members survive in a “brutally competitive” market. The third insists that it will help the public if members of his group are given license to be the exclusive providers of a certain service. The fourth says the public will be better off if unions are made illegal in his industry. The next day, a new group of lobbyists asks you for favors. These often conflict with those demanded by the first group, but are just as fervently presented as being in the “public interest.”

How then do you decide what to do? If an auto-industry spokesman argues for import tariffs on cars to protect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers, and an auto-dealer association argues for no tariffs in order to give hundreds of thousands of buyers lower prices, which group, in this case, is the “public”? Both and neither. You realize that “the public” is not an actual entity but only a collection of individuals. So which individuals, in any given case, should get what they want and at whose expense? There is no way to tell -- anyone can claim to be the public on any issue. In dismay you recognize that “the public interest” has no objective meaning. It is empty rhetoric.

Politics abhors a vacuum and when there are no coherent principles to guide action the void is filled by pressure-group warfare. The winner of any given battle is decided by such arbitrary factors as which group is bigger, richer, better connected (e.g., to the White House), or more attuned to the latest media hype or political tide. In practice, the principle of the “public interest” leads to a political war of all against all in which some individuals are sacrificed for the benefit of others. This mess is known as the “mixed” economy. (There are, of course, some principled lobbyists who seek, not special privileges, but simply the right to be left alone -- but their pleas fall on unprincipled ears.)

All this leads to widespread cynicism and demands for “campaign finance reform” -- reforms which cannot work. To think that you can eliminate the problem (the buying and selling of favors) by controlling its effects (limiting the size of contributions) is like trying to eradicate mental illness by limiting the number of beds in mental hospitals. Real campaign finance reform requires philosophical reform. We must discard the notion of the “public interest” and replace it with the proper principle: individual rights, which means the freedom of each individual to pursue his own interests as long as he does not coerce or defraud others. This means: replace the mixed economy with real capitalism -- no tariffs, no subsidies, no protection from competition, no favors.

Only when Congressmen have no special favors to sell will lobbyists stop trying to buy their votes -- and their souls. Property rights should have the same sacrosanct status as freedom of speech. If a modern lobbyist went to a Congressman and demanded that he get a law passed preventing people from publicly criticizing his organization, he would be laughed out of Washington. The same fate should befall lobbyists who want to limit how people use their property -- and for the same fundamental reason: an individual's right to his life.

--This editorial is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute and reproduced here with permission." Visit their MediaLink at http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/.

About the Author: Edwin A. Locke is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. He is author of The Prime Movers.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Playing Hardball with Soft Money
Uncommon Knowledge Peter Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1070638/posts?page=1


Note: If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list let know.

[Valin]

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts



Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob

PPS If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know.

[4CJ]

Only when Congressmen have no special favors to sell will lobbyists stop trying to buy their votes -- and their souls.

If this was ever attempted, wouldn't some liberal Dim group adopt a plan to 'Save the Washington Wh*res!'?

[Valin]

Only when Congressmen have no special favors to sell will lobbyists stop trying to buy their votes -- and their souls.

It would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.


An idea just popped into my (so called) brain. There are a number of orginizations that sell(cheap) or give away copies of the constition. Why not get a bunch and start leaving them laying around? A good way to subvert the SOBs.

[Eastbound]

"The corruption is caused not by material wealth but by spiritual poverty."

Well it certainly is a disease. Politics must be the virus which attacks the immune system -- making some stronger and slaying others. We already have too many dusty corpses littering the halls and closets of congress and the BCFR bunch wants to insure nobody moves the bodies. Yes, politics hates a vacuum . . . . especially if it is an Electrolux.

[Valin]

I recall reading back in the 80s that the supreme Soviet of the USSR had a higher turnover than the US House of Representatives.
Money is NOT the problem. George Will once pointed out that we spend more money on potato chips than on electing people to represent us.

[4CJ]

Why not get a bunch and start leaving them laying around? A good way to subvert the SOBs.

Good idea. Leave them in restaurants, the library, have you children distribute at school etc. I know I was very impressed when Justice Clarence Thomas pulled one from his jacket pocket (he was addressing a classroom full of young children).

[The_Eaglet]

All this leads to widespread cynicism and demands for “campaign finance reform” -- reforms which cannot work.

Let's hope not. Congress needs to "fail" this bill by a repeal so that it would not support litigation that would interfere with the freedom of speech.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are absolutely right about low turnover in the House of Representatives. I wrote both a book and an update article in the journal of the American Academy of Actuaries on this very subject. Ironically, the lowest defeat rate for incumbents was in 1792, two centuries ago, when 0% of the incumbents running for reelection were defeated. (However, in that year, turnover was 30% because that portion of the House chose to go home and not run again.)

It is only in the last 70 years that the House has become a obody with "permanent" membership. That's why I titled my article for the Actuaries, 'Til Death Do Us Part." LOL.

IMHO, the only solution for the general 95% reelection rate of imcumbents in the House is term limits. Campaigns against incumbents are always uphill battles. But campaigns for open seats are usually competitive -- the parties throw good candidates with ample fund-raising into open seat contests precisely because they recognize the opportunity for success. In close to one-third of all House elections, the non-incumbent party does not bother to run a legitimate candidate with a competent campaign, the just concede the seat to the incumbent.

John / Billybob

[Valin]

In close to one-third of all House elections, the non-incumbent party does not bother to run a legitimate candidate with a competent campaign, the just concede the seat to the incumbent.

You've just described the exact situation in the 5th congressional district of Mn. (Mpls) I had the honor of being served by Martin OLAV Sabo. he been in office for somewhere around...forever.

[The_Eaglet]

We already have too many dusty corpses littering the halls and closets of congress and the BCFR bunch wants to insure nobody moves the bodies.

That would be a consequence of the political speech infringements.

[Eastbound]

"That would be a consequence of the political speech infringements."

Yes, that too. I was alluding to those incumbents whose only purpose in life was to remain an incumbent.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward link:
McCain-Feingold Unmade?-Daily Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 56