Disentangling Political Speech and Lobbying from Political Contributions

 

DISENTANGLING POLITICAL SPEECH AND LOBBYING FROM POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.   5-13

ABSTRACT:  Methods of separating political contributions from political speech are suggested.

KEY WORDS:  political contributions, political speech, lobbying

Political contributions and political advertising have become serious concerns with regard to the maintenance of our democratic system over the last decade, and lobbying influence bought through political contributions (even though they are represented as independent from each other) has been a concern since the founding of the republic.  In recent elections it has become more apparent that immense amounts of money are being contributed and spent in hopes of influencing elections.  Big contributors and super-PACS are even attempting to influence state and local elections (even school boards), and even in states where they are not based and do not reside, all in hopes of furthering the cause of a political philosophy or national party.

Most of this money is spent in television advertising, which is extremely expensive, and it is worrisome that TV ads have become the major route through which voters get their information about candidates (much of it false and all of it misleading).  This information is formulated like other TV ads, whose purpose is not to inform but to influence, so most political ads on TV seek to influence through slogans, overly general claims regarding the candidate or issues the candidate “supports” or opposes, music, pictures, and negative “information” about opponents.  They almost never give information about the candidate’s stand on an issue that helps voters to understand the issue or know what the candidate would actually do about the issue.  Combining this with the election strategy of revealing as little as possible about a candidate’s specific beliefs and intentions, so as not to offend any segment of voters, leaves us with an election system that entices and courts voters without giving them solid information.

My belief is that every citizen should be able to petition the government (speak in person or in writing) concerning issues affecting that citizen and the country, and that every citizen should have equal access and equal influence with elected officials.  Citizens with more money or power should get no more attention or preference than any other citizen. I also believe that contributing money to politicians or political groups should not be viewed as protected speech under the Constitution, since I believe that oral or written speech was what was in the minds of the framers and of those who wrote the Bill of Rights.  Paying someone else to speak for one is not speech.  The right of all citizens (and all corporations) to state their political views and preferences should be protected, but giving money to influence elections should not be.  I also believe that electioneering should educate voters about candidates’ qualifications and intentions, so that elections are not simply competitions between candidates to determine who will be elected.

Much of the effort by various citizens and businesses to influence elections and therefore government actions is aimed at gaining financial advantage or establishing laws that control other people.  A current example is opposition by internet companies to controls on their gathering, using, and selling information about citizens who use the internet.  They want financial advantage for themselves and are wholly willing to sacrifice privacy on the part of citizens.  However, given human nature at this point in evolution, we have to live with and control as necessary and as best we can the selfish (which is fine) and inconsiderate (which is not fine) efforts of our fellows to get things at our expense.

It is interesting to note that efforts to influence voters by means other than those that help the voter to make up his or her mind regarding candidate qualifications and stands on issues are actually efforts to subvert democracy.  If you accept that the purpose of democracy is to establish and ensure equality of the governed, then some people having more influence than others (through wealth, fame, or any other reason) is subversive to democracy, since it either establishes inequality or promotes voting on bases other than electing the best qualified candidates.  (It is possible, of course, to envision democracy as simply another framework for managing the masses by the oligarchy, giving them some illusion of input and control but taking it away by effective influence methods relating to wealth and position.)

The problem of “big money” has gotten so big that some adjustments regarding “protected speech” are necessary, in my opinion, and our elections are in danger of becoming simply money contests (which side is more motivated to give money as a sign of their political leanings), instead of serious attempts to find out which candidates are best qualified.  Elections should certainly not be determined by who spends more money.

Here are some ideas that could structure elections differently. 

1. Public financing could be required for all candidates, with other spending and campaign contributions prohibited.  While this might encourage more useful campaigning by candidates, with more effort to communicate about issues and positions on issues, it would probably just increase the non-candidate spending on advertising and influencing.  The U.S. is not ready for completely educational and informational campaigns.

2. Influence efforts (to influence a voter’s vote), except by providing unbiased information about the candidate and the issues, could be prohibited.  Again, the U.S. is not ready for this and probably never will be.  We want to be able to influence other people for selfish purposes, and we are unwilling to give that up that opportunity vis a vis elections.

3. To prevent unequal influence by those with more money, petitioning the government could be limited to written communications, and all other influence efforts could be prohibited (in-person meetings, telephone contacts, oral arguments presented, quid-pro-quo offers, negotiations, gifts, promises of money to anyone for any purpose, promises of votes, etc.), but this restriction would be unacceptable to the nation at this time, since people want to reserve the right to influence government, if they need to, even though they might be seeking unfair advantage over other citizens by doing so.

4. If a person or a person representing others seeks to influence any government official regarding an issue, that person or represented entity could be restricted from contributing more than $5,000 to that government official’s campaign until after the next election affecting that official.  Presenting written arguments regarding an issue only (including how that person or entity would be affected by pending legislation or government activity) would not be restricted, but any other influence attempts (in-person meetings, telephone contacts, oral arguments presented, quid-pro-quo offers, negotiations, gifts, promises of money to anyone for any purpose, promises of votes, etc.) would fall under this contribution restriction.  Efforts of any type to petition the government to enforce current laws properly or to follow appropriately fair procedures in its actions would also be exempted from this restriction.

This would require record-keeping by someone about influence attempts.  Government officials could be required by law to keep these records or to report them to a record-keeping office.  Contributions would also have to be filtered by the officials or by a record-keeping office.  This would be cumbersome but probably no more cumbersome than current attempts to control campaign contributions.  It could also be circumvented, but any proven circumvention could be grounds for barring the official from any elected office for life, and any proven efforts by donors to circumvent the restriction could have felony consequences.

5. Limit campaign contributions from any person or entity to $5,000 per candidate per election and to $5,000 per political party per election.  All contributions for political purposes would have to be identified by candidate or party.  No other contributions would be allowed.  The organization that received the money would have to spend it for the identified candidate or party and could not pass it along to any other person or organization.  Organizations that exist to further a political philosophy could receive contributions without this limit but would be restricted from endorsing any individual candidate.  They could be permitted, though, to make this statement and this statement only—“Candidate X seems to us to be the candidate who would best further our political beliefs and interests.”

6. Some of the current “fair elections” efforts focus on increased disclosure of the origins of large campaign contributions—i.e., identifying large donors and their contributed amounts publicly.  In my opinion, this will not ultimately be effective enough, since while individuals and corporations who give large amounts would like to avoid being publicly identified, to avoid business losses and personal threats, it is quite possible that if our system becomes even more cynical, large donors will no longer be unwilling to be identified.  Some restrictions on amounts donated seem would be more fair and more effective.

To limit campaign contributions inherently reduces the options of some individuals or entities to influence government, and we should not do that without serious consideration.  The dangers of corruption and demoralization in our democracy from allowing some citizens and entities to have such disproportionately great influence and of allowing elections to become money contests are great enough that some restriction on money in elections is warranted.

 

essays\campaigncontributions513