True Campaign Reform: Bring People into Politics
Since the Obama campaign announced its intention to stay out of the public financing system for the 2008 general election campaign, there has been a lot of predictable harrumphing from editorial commentators who were strangely silent when the McCain campaign cheated in the existing system during the primaries (using it to guarantee a loan and then backing out so McCain can do unlimited spending until the convention). Most commentators have airly dismissed the Obama argument that using the contributions and energies of millions of modest donors is a better road to political reform than trying to manuever in a broken public system that has many holes and has left Democrats in the past vulnerable to variegated big-money maneuvers by conservatives.
But from my perspective as a scholar who has studied civic and political engagement in America since the 1800s, Obama has discovered the much better route to democratic revitalization. The issue boils down to Mugwumps versus popular mobilizers. A century ago, elite Mugwump reformers decided that the best way to reform U.S. governance was to get money and partisanship out of politics and promote low-key educated discussions. They opposed a nineteenth-century style of electoral and movement politics that, yes, was often corrupted by business money, but was also emotional, stirring, and popularly mobilizing. Most eligible voters turned out for elections, and most public causes were funded by millions of Americans who were supporters or dues-paying members of vast associations. People contributed in small bits to massive national efforts ranging from populism to temperance to fraternal and farmers and labor and women's associations, and they gave their energies as well as their money.
Over the past year, the Obama campaign (building on some earlier party and movement efforts) has started to re-invent classic American ways of building public movements. The Obama campaign uses the latest in Internet technogies, yet it also encourages local and state connections and links people all over the country into concerted efforts. Regular communications to citizens and local and state leaders are crucial to the effort -- just as they were to the federated associations typical of American civic life in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (as I documented in my 2003 book DIMINISHED DEMOCRACY: FROM MEMBERSHIP TO MANAGEMENT IN AMERICAN CIVIC LIFE). The Key to making all of this work is to encourage regular, repeated small contributions from a vast network of citizen-supporters, and to encourage contributors to give time and mobilize their friends, too. This is a new style of electoral fund-raising compared to what has prevailed since the 1970s. But it is also a creative revival of the best of long-standing forms of citizen engagement in America.
Mugwump type reformers -- and the current public finance reformers who are their descdenants -- think that the key to good politics in America is getting money out. These reformers (I called them neo-Mugwumps in Diminished Democracy) want minimually financed elections and believe that calm discussions among educated people are the way to go; such reformers have never been interested in expanding popular involvement in politics. But the other model, the popular civic model, realizes that widespread citizen passion and engagement are more important. Getting a lot of people into politics is more important than trying to get money out. And involving millions is worth more than winning a few arguments in the editorial pages of the New York Times.
I suspect that many established elites in BOTH the Democratic and Republican party will be secretly hoping that Obama loses this fall. He is new and different, above all because he is trying to remake and revitalize American democracy. His victory, using a campaign financed by millions rather than the few, and using federated approaches to civic engagement spread across dozens of states, would signal a turning point in U.S. democracy. This victory would not solve all problems in Washington DC. But it would show the value of a classic style of U.S. democracy that energizes the many rather than just the very wealthy or the highly educated few.
Obama went back on his word -- this speaks volumes about his character. It also speaks volumes about his inexperience that he was willing to offer a categorical promise so incautiously. He appears to have made no attempt to negotiate with John McCain to see if any of his objections could be met.
The real problem is not the method of financing that Obama is able to use -- the real problem is whether or not anhy other candidate will be able to use it. If you are a candidate opposing someone using Obama's method, do you opt for public financing with the spending limits or do you try to tap in to fat cats to get the money to prevail?
If both candidates opt for public financing, both candidates have a reasonable independence from direct dependence on interested donors.
If one candidate who rejects public financing in favor of Obama's Internet method fails and the other candidate, who has relied on fat cats to counter the Internet money flood, prevails -- you have a President who is dependent on interest groups. That is the real hazard.
June 23, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are fixated on money (and a few cheap shots). But this post is about the importance of civic involvement in a democracy. Funding by fat cats, or by Federal general revenue makes the public passive. Asking the public to get involved through small donations, local organizing, volunteering and other types of participation is the alternative that Obama has tapped into.
Either explain why you do not approve of greater civic involvement or explain how the same old public funding system does anything to encourage it.
June 23, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did not go back on his word. That's just the easy, Reader's Digest, Republican/MSM talking point version. He said he would opt into public financing under certain conditions. McCain's gaming of the system in the primaries is only one good reason not to continue on that course. Obama realized that the public financing system will not work as long as the Republican Party and McCain will make light of the system, play games with it, and encourage the unlimited use of 527s to do their campaigning. It wasn't Bush who took down Kerry, it was swift boat lies.
Obama said he would not participate in a broken system, but that as president he would work to make it something that can't be gamed, and that can work. He has been as good as his word in this, despite the phenomenal ignorance of people who can only read two words and not a complete sentence.
June 24, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Theda, as a Clinton supporter who is supporting Obama I think you should know that your reframing of every argument to benefit whichever side Obama is on hurts your credibility as well as his. The estimate right now is that Obama will raise as much as 500 million to spend in the general election - basically a two month period. That is an obscene amount of money for a political campaign and while it will allow Obama a huge megaphone, it also goes against the campaign finance reform that Obama has always stood for - reducing the influence of money on politics. I pity the poor voters in the swing states who are going to be hearing the same message over and over and over in tv ads etc. so much that they simply tune out.
The goal of campaign finance reform was not only to reduce the role of big interest money in the campaign, but to reduce the role of money in general in political campaigns. Let's assume Ron Paul was the Repuiblican opponent who was raising big bucks and Obama was the one having difficulty with fundraising. You can bet you'd be making exactly the opposite argument that you are making right now. It's called situational ethics at best and intellectual dishonesty (or bullshit) at worst.
We can defend Obama's changed position by arguong we need to use whatever advantages we have to win office. That argument is more convincing because it is 1. actually true and 2. displays a level on honesty with the voters so they'll think he's going back on his word but at least he's genuine and honest about it rather than trying to pull another one over on them.
June 23, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to think twice before you use such a pedestrian blog-o-sphere insult with one of America's most distinguished social scientists.
This mode of interaction is extraordinarily democratic, you get to talk trash to a Harvard dean. But since Prof. Skocpol is here, I'm sure she knows what she is getting into. And being a professor doesn't always make her right, but I would guess she knows a little more about social and political movements than you do.
So you might want to show a little respect and perhaps try to learn something or at least engage in a more thoughtful discourse. Sorry "this isn't the 1800's" probably doesn't pass for a thoughtful argument.
June 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies if I came off as disrespectful, but her arguments have been increasingly pro-Obama vs. based on actual principles. Such as when she argued that white feminists who don't stand up to protect Michelle Obama from sexism are racists. When Hillary Clinton was facing sexism in the media, she said absolutely nothing. Now that the sexist spotlight is turned on Michelle Obama there's a return to the principles. PLEASE. Some intellectual honesty would be nice.
I have not read her previous writings on civic participation, but I strongly disagree that non-public financing by relying on small donors in the presidential general election is a good thing for the reasons below.
June 24, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And while I may not be one of America's most distinguished social scientists, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night :)
June 24, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now that you saved a little money staying at Holiday Inn , you'll be ale to contribute a little more ;-)
June 24, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and you are always completely confused about the whole point, which is not about the amount of money but the amount of civic involvement in the electoral and ultimately governing process.
Two quick questions.
1. How does public financing encourage civic involvement?, or Are you more likely to get engaged in the process if you are helping to fund a campaign or if someone else (the government or a mega-donor) does it for you?
2. Why is John McCain limited from raising money the exact same way Obama has? There is no structural barrier to it at all. democrats are not wealthier than Republicans. There are just as many of them to donate. Some of them even know how to use the inter-tubes. Yet the complaint is that only Obama is money machine. Why exactly is that?
June 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and McCain are well known & their every step (and misstep) is documented by the media. They are playing on an even playing field in terms of dollars for the campaign but there is absolutely no even playing field in regards to civic engagement. Obama already has a whole network of volunteers, contributors, honeebankers, canvassers, campaigners across the 50 states - much larger than John McCain. That to me is the civic engagement we should be looking for.
Do you think Obama's volunteers would be less motivated by the fact there's not a CONTRIBUTE NOW message attached everytime you visit the website, every communication a plea to give the campaign more of your hard earned money? I think people would be even more engaged knowing that writing a check won't cut it - they actually need to invest their time, energy and efforts to help elect Obama.
What of competing priorities? For every dollar a small donor gives to Barack Obama for his campaign, for most people that's a dollar they can't give to their local, house and senate political campaigns. It's called competing priorities & for most folks that have a limited budget of how much they can afford in political donations, continuing to give give give to Obama is the call they are getting. So he can spend 500 million dollars in two months vs. accepting public financing like every other presidential candidate has done since Watergate (except Ross Perot)? It is incredibly short-sighted and selfish.
I don't think the best model for civic participation should be done from a top down model where people are donating tons of money at the top of the ticket while the lesser known non-rock stars at the bottom are struggling for financing to be competitive. That's why there are so many independently wealthy people running for office - because they can afford to compete financially. Are there not better candidates out there who are just as engaged but can't self-finance their own campaign? Probably but they get shouted down because they don't have the money to act as a bullhorn.
Obama could do more help in the general election and broader civic engagement by accepting the public financing and encouraging the citizens he has inspired to act and contribute locally while giving to his campaign in terms of time, volunteering and zeal - something that cannot be bought.
June 24, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again I think you are more fixated on the amount of money than on the importance of the act of giving it.
First, I would argue that encouraging small donations has been the linchpin for generating the kind of engagement and enthusiasm that Obama has (and to a lesser extent that Clinton did). Donating was like buying a ticket, or better a share in the campaign. Putting our money where are mouths are. From my personal experience it rings true that you care more about what you are "invested" in, even if that investment is small.
You suggest Obama has created all the enthusiasm he needs and he can coast on that. I don't believe it. He has 1.4 million contributors or such. Why is that enough? Shouldn't there be 10 million. Mind you, I would much rather have 10 million people donating $50 than 1 million donating $500.
Second, donating money has been transformed into a social act. There is no way that donating even $100 makes a material difference to the campaign, but when you know you are part of 1 million other people doing the same thing, sometimes at the same time it makes each individual feel more efficacious. This is the essential collective action problem, and it seems to me we have made a psychological breakthrough here. Public financing allows us all to be free riders on the huge coffers of the Federal government. Public financing uses $160 million out of a $2 trillion dollar budget. You don't even have to get off your couch.
You argue: If we raise more money then we will just spend it in obnoxious ways. That could be true, but I would argue there are many innovative ways of spending money. You can expand the markets you are getting the message out. You can pay for more intensive ground campaigning, and organization building which I think is much more valuable and lasting than commercials. In fact it is probably so expensive, candidates rarely bother to the detriment of our civic culture. One problem we have is that too many of our political contest are not contests. Anything that makes this a 50 state campaign rather than a 13 state swing state only campaign would be better. I would have thought the democratic primary campaign with two extraordinarily well funded candidates tought us that.
Last point, you argue that if I send money to Obama then I won't send it to other more needy candidates. I strongly disagree. I would bet that having made any contribution makes a person much more likely to donate to others. The reason is the feeling of efficacy. If you give money through Act Blue for example, you are seeing how your own small efforts multiplied thousands of times can make a difference. Starbucks made lots of other small coffee houses more successful becuase it got people interested (again?) in drinking coffee and hanging out
The last issue is is there enough money to go around. here I will only say Obama has 1.4 million donors or something. May 65-70 million people will vote for him. there's a huge un-activated mass of small shareholders out there untapped.
June 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think where we differ most is in the use of money as an expression of politcal support. Who supports Obama more effectively? The donor who simply clicks a button and contributes 50, 100, 1000 dollars or the broke college student who can't afford to make a donation but invests time and energy and money into the campaign. I would argue the non-monetary investment is MUCH more valuable. Someone who donates money to a soup kitchen is less invested than someone who actually spends their Saturday ladling it out. To look at this from beyond just campaign finance, can we become a society again that puts a premium on actual hard work and investment of one's energies rather than just writing a check? I know Obama has many many volunteers who are willing to work as hard as possible on his behalf to get him elected and engage others. That's the commitment and zeal is the critical advantage that I consider most healthy for the party, not the ability to blow more on a single general election candidate than the GDP of some small nations.
I can argue from experience that dollars spent in a presidential campaign necessarilly mean less to invest in other areas. My charitable giving in election years - lower because the Red Cross is competing with Hillary or Obama getting elected. Obama continuing to raise money in the general election will mean that people who choose to donate to him may not be able to contribute to other areas as well.
For those voters who do need to make choices on how to use the dollars to support their causes that's a critical issue. How much more engaged would citizens be if Obama took the public financing and said take back your donations. Rather than using them to fund my election, use your dollars at the local level and ensure we have broader majorities in city gov't, state gov't, and Congress? Now that people are contributing and becoming part of the movement, share the love rather than continuing to hoard contributions.
June 24, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some people are way more engaged than others. That is the status quo and always has been. The question is how do you engage many more. I am not talking thousands, but millions.
Contributing is easy but not passive. Public financing is entirely passive (yes, if no one checks the box on the tax forms we may have a problem). Again, contributing is for many, many people a first step to greater involvement. You need to address the social aspect of giving which is in fact quite new.
I am not impressed by the arguments about budget constraints. There are very very few people who cannot afford $10 an entirely symbolic amount but again a declaration of support that far exceeds what most people do in any election. You can buy a yard sign or make you own. Same thing. But it is also a form of membership and there is indeed greater value in that, the sense of being joined with others.
The other solution to the kind of constraints you are worried about is to enlarge the universe of givers, and here is where it is important to break the psychological barrier between passivity and action, between acting alone and acting as part of a collective action.
Whether you lack money or have already given the max, you should do what you can to get someone who has not yet contributed to do so. Only a few million people have donated counting all campaigns combined. We can enlarge that by several times and hardly scratch the surface of what is possible. This is not a zero sum game.
Maybe poltical engaement is not the answer to civic involvement in every issue. Do politicla contributors give more to Red Cross. I do not know.
I would suspect that breaking the inertia of believing you as an individual can't really make a difference is extremely important. Being part of a campaign to elect a president can be a way to break that inertia.
June 24, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey speaking of passively contributing to the presidential election through the checkbox - the Obama's didn't check the box on their tax returns. So I guess I should have been clued in to his less than fervent support for public campaign financing earlier :)
Here's the thing about donating. Once you donate, they keep asking for more. Every campaign e-mail attached with a donate now. When I go to the website donate now. They then sell their donor lists to other candidates so more people ask me to donate now. MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY If you donate $10, they want $50, $100, etc etc etc. With all these worthy causes (political and non-political), something has to give for most people.
I think public financing in the presidential campaign removes the money question but still allows you to ask for buy in and committment in other ways. I'd like to see arguing on substance rather than on who's got more avenues due to a money advantage. I'd like to see a candidate not waste time on his own fundraisers or pestering Hillary's donors for money, but using his standing and network to raise money for other worthy candidates and spread the word locally.
The amount of money in the general election that will be spent is obscene. I cannot imagine what it will be like in 2012, 2016 if Obama's campaign spends the 500,000,000 in two months for the gneral election in addition to the more than 265,000,000 spent to date in the primary season. What other country has such an insane election scheme? How that is more democratic is beyond me. Assuming the next candidate does not have rock star appeal, will their ability to inspire people to donate be allowed to dwarf the substance of the message?
June 24, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for question #2 - John McCain is despised by a large segment of his party which is why his fundraising has been low. If you've noticed, he's been catching up recently. Republicans are not going to allow themselves to be blown out of the water with massive amounts of spending by the Obama. McCain will catch up. And we'll be back where we were before - about even in speanding money...just an obscene amount of it on both sides. I don't see how non-stop political ads (increasingly more negative and untruthful) will help us in the long run. That type of bombardment is going to make some people tune out rather than participate.
June 24, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again I have no problem with the total amount of money spent, and I much prefer that it be directed by the candidates who can be held accountable for what they do with it.
Do you think the amount of money spent in the campaign will be limited to the $160 million of public funds? If un-regulated, un-accountable outside groups can raise twice that then our elections become a farce. The obscenity is that once you cap spending you allow someone to game the system. the candidates do it by narrowing the scope of the campaign to a small number of swing states. Outside groups do it by waiting until the campaigns are constrained, then out spending them.
Both are bad.
We should have a 50-state election, where all the money is controlled by the candidates and the candidates only. I don't see how that is possiible under the current system.
June 24, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is a view I have held long before I knew anything about the Obama campaign, as you can see by looking at the same discussion of campaign reform issues in my 2003 book.
If Clinton had won, she probably would have opted out, too. The problem with the existing "public" system is that it is easily circumvented by Republican/conservative big money people working around the campaigns. And the RNC is much better funded than the DNC.
I doubt very much that Obama will raise or spend as much as some are projecting -- but if he does, that needs to be compared to the total spent by all Republican organs. And much of it is a worthy investment in building a stronger Democratic Party nationwide.
June 23, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the electoral systems benefits when either side has such a huge money advantage that they basically shout down the other side with money regardless of the source. With all due respect this is not the 1800s and there are less citizens who are wholly removed from the political debate. The reality nowadays of internet and 24 hour cable news allows for much more substantive citizen engagement than just massive amounts of ads. Look at the ratings for the democratic primary debates this year - people are actively engaged.
The donor advantage benefits the Democrats this year - but what about in 2012 or 2016? Are we really ready to say that from here on out privately funded presidential elections are the way to go regardless of the amount of obscene amounts of money raised and spent?
June 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get all elitist or anything (and even worse, draw you into my web of elitism), but the average American is also more able to ignore politics due to 24-hour cable and the internet. Back in the 1800s, politics was their main reality show.
I'd argue that a greater percentage of eligible voters are removed from the political debate now than were in the 1800s.
June 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of elitism, weren't there land owning requirements,literacy requirements and poll taxes back in the 1800s? What was the turnout percentage of the population actually eligible to vote? And of that percentage, how many actually did vote based on informed decision making versus party affiliation?
June 24, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there was a reason I said "eligible voters" instead of just "the population". Yeah, it was definitely a much smaller segment of the population that was eligible to vote.
As for the percentage of those who voted based on being informed vs. just being partisan, I really don't know. However, look at how many times a 3rd party was successful enough to stop being a 3rd party. Specifically, the Democratic and Republican parties both rose to dominance in the 19th century. Of course, the Democratic party arose from a division in the Democratic-Republican party, so it wasn't truly a rise from being a 3rd party. My point is that we were definitely a lot more dynamic with respect to political parties back then.
Don't get me wrong, your point about how many people were ineligible to vote is a valid one. I just don't buy into the argument that we're a more educated electorate. We could be more educated if we chose to be, but most people choose not to be.
June 24, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most people are fairly well informed on the presidential level and clueless on the local level. That's where we need to make a real effort in civic engagement and all this money flowing to the presidential election has a negative impact on the candidates for city councilman, or state senator, local representative. The turnout is reasonable for the presidential election and pitiful for the offyear votes. Yes civic engagement is important - I don't see how not accepting public financing in the general election contributes to that goal.
I am in agreement that it helps Obama and I applaud that he's in it to win it as Hillary would say - anything that increases the chance for him winning is good in my book. But let's not sacrifice the greater principles in trying to defend this changed position. Forgoing public financing is not a step in the right direction to have political candidates compete based on merit rather than their aptitude at fundraising and using that bullhorn to shout out candidates with less financial backing.
June 24, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many candidates with more money do not use it efectively, so I do not think financial advantage guaratees a result. far from it. i would think all you need is the example iof JHOhn McCain in the primary to get that.
Also, you think electoral participation is zero sum. Anything to the presidential candidates detracts from local politics. I bet exactly the opposite is true.
Many people get activated by the national campaign then they get involved in their precinct and local party operations, etc... I argue being able to contribute and own a stake in the high profile national race is the key to activating people's latent desire for involvement. The so-called "netroots" are very active directing financing to local races, I bet none of that would happens were it not for the activation brought on by the Dean campaign in 2004 that proved that small donations bundled by the social aspects of the internet could be effective.
We have had public financing for decades and yet only recently do we see a huge growth in activism at all levels. it's not a coincidence.
June 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't one reason people are far more engaged in this election cycle that at least one campaign is using a method that intentionally draws them in?
And Ben is right, we are talking about more engaged relative to our own recent history when our electoral participation has been dismally low.
June 23, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I admit that Ron Paul did a phenomenal job at citizen engagement. How many delegates did he win?
June 24, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans use winner take all because they do not trust the people. Easier for the party bosses to control the outcome don't you think?
June 24, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And that's a view held by many people, for many years, even decades, about the fundamental problems with campaign finance. In fact, as Campaign Finance Reform was debated in the late 90's these problems were foreseen explicitly.
June 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you set up a false dichotomy of "get the money out" vs. "get the passion in." No such dichotomy need exist.
Of course, the REAL solution is parliamentary government in America, combined with public financing for Congressional campaigns -- INCLUDING third-party candidates.
But, the duopoly will never let that happen.
June 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how to have a debate with someone who says the REAL solution is to change our constitution so we have a parliamentary system. Good luck with that one.
Nevertheless, being able to buy a ticket to the game does seem to be accomplishing the task of (1) getting people involved (democrats at least)and (2) breaking the monopoly of the big donors.
The public financing system let's the candidates do as they please without active support from voters (unless you count checking off that box on your taxes as engagement). It's essentially passive.
June 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's is indeed a more inclusive means of raising money. 45% of his fundraising has come from people contributing less than $200 to him, a figure that far exceeds both John McCain (24%) and Hillary Clinton (30%).
But vital to keeping broad participation possible are the contribution limits, currently $2300 per election. Without those caps, deep pocket donors could directly have a much greater impact, which would weaken public participation. At least this way, 100 people giving $100 each can donate as much as a wealthy couple giving the max. Without such limits, such smaller donations could be swamped by the wealthy.
Obama has done an excellent job of realizing the potential Howard Dean saw by using the internet to get more "everyday" people involved. An Obama victory would be a populist one also.
June 23, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about limits. It would be great if the contribution limit were something like $100 a month. I'd be happy if it were $100 total. The counter argument is always about start-up costs. Seems to me the internet can potential solve that if you can get people's attention.
The promise is that potential candidates will be far imaginative in the ways they present themselves to potential citizen funders, and they make more investment in being civicly involved well before running. (that is you may get successful candidates arising out of citizen movements/organizations rather than elective office). The danger is that people will use methods more provocative, polarizing means to get attention.
June 23, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this were so then, Gene McCarthy would not have been able to force LBJ out. What you like is a system where none but the rich or famos need apply.
June 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like a system where candidates have to raise money from the people actively, period.
I am against self-funding of campaigns; they should be held to the $100 dollar limit, too. Mind you under our current jurisprudence, I think this is un-constitutional.
Candidates who intend to do this will have to be more creative about letting the voters know who they are, but then I imagine voters will also start to form groups (aggregating their small contributions) looking for candidates to support. Kind of like building a political venture capital fund but for the little guy. Of course this is already happening with DFA, ActBlue, etc...
Famous people however, should be forbidden from holding office. that would be terrible. terrible I say.
June 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so just the famous. Your concern seems to be more toward a quixotic (IMO) quest to get money out of politics. Mine concern is artificial barriers to good people with good ideas that lack fame or fortune. Lack of fame or fortune is quite enough of a barrier.
June 24, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the opposite.
I think more money is necessary, I just think it has to flow from far more people. Because of technology regular folks with good ideas WILL get the attention of regular folks with money (when they act collectively). It's already happening. Hell think about where Obama was 5 years ago.
Old system: you go to the party bosses, big money contributors and ask them if you can run.
New system: post a compelling video on youtube, start participating on daily kos and other activist sites. See if you can get seed capital from the masses....away you go. It's in its infancy but it's well on the way and breaking the monopoly of the powerful to choose who gets to run.
June 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem of "money in politics" sort of goes beyond campaign finance reform--like, for example, having a series of Wall Street sharp shooters from Goldman Sachs running the Fed and the Treasury year in and year out-- fat, greedy, sloppy chickens that are coming home to feast at the IRS trough as we speak, ripping off pension funds, and laying people off (another 10% of Citibank's workforce just bit the dust, not to mention every other industry this will affect before we're done with it).
This means enabling the hoi polloi to whip out their credit cards and donate to Camp Obama and pat themselves on the back for going to the political media circus, does little to address the matter.
It also means this is a painfully thin analysis of money in politics. Donate to Obama's economic advisory committee? Why would I do that?
June 23, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who do you want running the Fed and the Treasury? Your dentist?, your car mechanic?, maybe, your high school English teacher? And would you want the Goldman Sachs guys to fix your teeth, car, or teach your kids English?
Appointments to these positions are largely mediated by the political process already, so one suspects your ability as a citizen to influence the political process carries over in this domain as well. maybe the public finace system which encourages passivity allows those most interested in the outcomes to dominate the process.
June 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to hear more on how Obama's "federated approaches to citizen engagement" might be realized during an Obama presidency. You're certainly right that it would mark a dramatic transformation of the American political scene, but I'm not sure how exactly I see it materializing.
June 23, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, Charles, that we do not know if the campaign approach would carry over into Obama's presidency if he is elected. But I bet it would, as broad citizen engagement will be needed to push through, for example, health insurance reform, and the networks and connections will be in place.
In the campaign itself, the 50-state strategy, early consultations with governors, and efforts to let supports do more than give money and connect with others locally -- all these are examples of a truly federated strategy. Like what always used to happen in U.S. civic/political life, with regular back and forth connections among national, state, and local leaders and an emphasis on drawing in more and more members/participants.
Theda S.
June 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
there goes dijamo again, saying what I'm thinking but saying it better.
most of the rest of you people aren't paying attention. your point is basically that since Barack Obama did it, it MUST be right. that's some strange reasoning. it's even stranger considering that Obama had spoken about this and PROMISED he'd accept public funding...and now he's changed his mind. but that's still all fine with you guys.
this just proves that Obama is not the messiah, he's a regular old politician. but we knew that. what makes me sad is to discover that the Democrats are as money-hungry as the Republicans. I naively thought we were better than that.
June 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you have no forkcin idea who Theda Skocpol is and how she might have formed an opinion about this subject shows your knee-jerkish ignorance.
That campaigns funded by small donors is the answer to campaign finance reform was evident since the 2004 democratic primary. Why didn't you read my blog posts then? The methods were far from perfected, as they are still not.
Again you are fixated by money not by democracy which is enhanced by citizen participation. Clinton;s campaign surely benefited from this. McCain could too if the republicans had any faith in the people. They do not.
June 24, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not sure I'd be willing to commit to this - it seems to me that the truth of it remains to be seen.
Interesting as it is to try to ascribe to one portion of the electoral process (raising money) a panoply of characteristics (improved participation, diffusion of influence) it seems to me that this thread is not considering some important factors.
For instance there's generational participation, and the particular candidate's style, and the fact that access to this new means of raising money is not any more universal than bundling events. Consider, for instance, the woman described in this article by Professor X http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/college whose preparation for participation in a computer linked society was so non-existent that she had no idea of how to research a topic, much less write a paper. And consider the fact that the primary source of carbon emissions is the burning of coal to produce electricity. Until we figure out how to power this internet age with some means other than coal burning, the cost of electricity is either going to eliminate this new-found means of money raising, or again make it available only to those who can afford the electric bill.
And, although I found Senator Obama's personal style and presentation enormously attractive, keep in mind that 40-odd percent of the polled populace does not, and that half the voters who participated in the Democratic primary elections also were not particularly attracted to him.
After listening to Diane Rehm interview James Hansen this morning, reinforced by the scientific community's worries here in Woods Hole where I live (about which I have been hearing now for 28 years, and looking at the abject failure of our society to bring out society-wide lifestyle change, the age of the Internet community building and fund raising may be a whole lot shorter than we can presently perceive.
For all we know, we may be at the end of this new, exciting means of promoting participation by the populace at large, not at the beginning.
June 24, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying it's a bad thing Obama's collecting all this money on the internet because it uses too much electricity?
That's the best argument I ever heard.
June 24, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just saying it may last a lot shorter time than the populists here expect.
No value statement involved.
June 24, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Appointments to these positions are largely mediated by the political process already, so one suspects your ability as a citizen to influence the political process carries over in this domain as well."
I'm sorry, but you're simply not paying attention. All these people are whipping out their credit cards to elect a guy who is going to take orders from Wall Street because he's dentist to their criminal cartel.
So, fine. You go donate to their media circus. I'm going to go fill my gas tank and bide my time until this gets so bad people like you can't kid yourselves any more.
June 24, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you really thought that, then you should use that gas money to invest in Wall Street instead of using it to do your part for global warming. Or are you just too good for that.
June 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least I got the part about starting the block quote right. That's progress. I guess I was supposed to tell it to end, too.
June 24, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's grassroots successes as well as the amounts of money he can raise through the grassroots does more than neuter the special interests' money pattern of 'purchasing' candidates and government goodies.
Obama's success and ability to communicate through campaign ads also can counter the effect of a broken corporate MSM which distorts or buries the news which citizens have to rely on to get their information.
June 24, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally am very excited by how serious Obama seems to be about transforming the Democratic party. I've been active for a lot of years (decades), and I have never seen anything like this.
The trade-off between public funding and being able to build a Democratic party organization in all 50 states is totally worth it, IMO. A grassroots organization, with actual on the ground activists. Who'd have thought it possible? It is a thing of beauty to watch.
And to participate in. Obama is telling regular grassroots folks that he needs them in this campaign, and then giving them (us) meaningful things to do. It stuns me that I could go online and get a list of phone numbers of people to call for Obama in primary states, from the comfort of my own home, with no campaign worker watching over my shoulder. This is very different from campaigning as usual, folks. It is not just that the technology makes it possible; that is the least of it. Most candidates would not let go of control that way, would not be creative that way, would not trust the grassroots that way.
Honestly, Obama's hard-nosed decision to go without public funding encourages me that he is serious about winning, and about transforming politics. (Will it, or he, be perfect? Of course not, that's ridiculous, and not how politics works-- and it is still politics.)
I'm practically salivating over the fight for national health care, with grassroots organizations in 50 states.
June 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, the existing "public" system is a joke. That does not throw the concept of publicly financed elections out the window, however. Conflating 100% publicly financed elections with the "public" system we have today is downright misleading. The existing system has always been a step toward 100% publicly financed elections.
My support for 100% publicly financed elections is because I think it opens the playing field for more candidates. It's pretty obvious that high political office, for the most part, is a game played by ultra-rich, well-connected politicians. 100% publicly financed elections, a system that also mandates broadcasters to provide a certain amount of free television advertising, would go a long way toward opening up politics to people who have been marginalized from running for political office for decades.
June 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are calling public financing is actually taxpayer financing that allows everyone to be a passive free rider. It may benefit some candidates but why would it help the voters?
My goal in a campaign financing system is to get the ability to contribute as close as possible to the value of each vote. The ability to attract money should be aligned with the ability to attract votes. The problem of wealthy interests controlling the public sphere is not because of the choice of candidates, it is because the people are encourage to sit it out. If we can all only donate $100, or even $500, it is much more democratic. It already is.
June 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you're describing as public financing is really more like America's present health care system. Both you and Dr. Skocpol are taking an unusual election year and generalizing it to all elections. There are plenty of elections that most Americans snooze through. It's great that Americans are enthusiastic about this election, but it is by no means the norm. Furthermore, I know that my small donations have come about simply because we have a dictator in office. People are strapped. A 100% taxpayer funded campaign finance system is more cost efficient and more fair.
June 24, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Why is it "obscene"?
There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE in this country. $500 million is less than two bucks per person to get the message out. Even if you cut it down to just the voting population (citizens, over 18) you're still looking at less than $5/voter. (Over 100 million votes were cast in 2004.)
Yes, it's a big number. But it's a big country, too. I think that's part of Prof. Skocpol's point.
June 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put this in context - the federal gov't had a fit when it was proposed that we spend 200 million on rebuilding after hurricane Katrina. This is a LOT of money by any measure and all we have at the end of the day is a president. the same president could have been elected with public financing and those funds could have been directed elsewhere for better use.
June 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
put a slash before the b in the html tag. starting tags have closing tags have
June 24, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me see if I can fool the site once more
Starting tag looks like this without the spaces:
Closing tag looks like this without the spaces:
June 24, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll google it next, if this doesn't work. Sorry to junk up the place. Is there ever going to be a preview function?
June 24, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four legs good; two legs better
June 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
djamo, I understand your point, but you know, surely, that realistically noone would get elected if they did not campaign to some extent. And that the media will not spend their resources to cover candidates out of the kindness of their greedy bloated hearts. So, pretty inevitably, somehow some money has to be located to pay the photographers', reporters' and webmasters' bills if any candidate is going to be noticed by the electorate.
Now, if you wish to propose that campaign seasons should be curtailed so that the cost of those photogs, reporters and web masters are smaller, I suspect lots of the people here, including Ms. Skocpol, could happily engage with that subject.
But to simply throw the relative cost of rebuilding NOLA up against the amount of money we anticipate this presidential campaign will raise and spend doesn't further the conversation, as I see it.
Look, the entire question is so large that bringing up any alternative to spending money on campaigning becomes a door to all that space. Sure we could spend the money to rebuild NOLA, but we can't even agree that rebuilding NOLA is a good idea. Certainly, environmentally, NOLA should never have even come into existence and clearly we would do better to spend some of the money on rooting out shady contractors to the Army Corps and enforcing standards for the retention of inspectors. But then we're going up river, where construction is hardly pristine, vis. the mess we're looking at this year, not to mention that our impact on the weather is still a point of wide disagreement among the populace. So right there we're confronting off-shore oil drilling and we're back to NOLA.
So putting the $500Mil that Barack and his opponent will be spending to get elected into context requires a much wider vision than just one pet project or gripe of any single one of us.
June 24, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Google "blockquote".
June 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some scholars have suggested giving vouchers to each voter, to allow him or her to direct contributions as s/he wishes. This would at least marry a direct action (thinking, contributing) to the flow of money, and if it could be made relatively equal -- which it cannot given Supreme Court decisions as of now -- it would be true public finance. The current "public finance" system is passive. Taxpayers check off a box, in no relation to a particular electoral race or candidate. Better to let people direct their money -- so that citizen involvement and flows of publicly mandated money go together.
Theda S.
June 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that vouchers address the concerns that I have about campaign financing much better than the current public system. Without engagement, I suspect vouchers would be corrupted (bundled by political operatives, for example).
The most important element of campaign finance reform to me is getting rid of the influence of the big money people-- bundlers, now that they can't directly contribute the money. I do not want politicians so beholden to money people. Obama's 1.3 million small donors is a radical new answer to that question --and the reason I think it is just fine for him to opt out of public financing.
(As an aside, I would really like to see him shrug off the rich Clinton donors who are demanding "to be heard" whatever that means (and it sounds sinister to me). I don't know enough about all the ramifications to recommend that he do this, but it sure would be nice to let them know they are not needed, since he now has us small donors.)
Another important element of campaign finance reform for me is to make sure we develop a system that lets people run who are not millionaires-- we have such a huge bias in favor of filthy rich people being the only ones who can run for office. The Obamas were merely upper middle class until his books became best sellers, not very long ago. I think this is pretty rare. I don't think this issue has been resolved at all-- Obama is a fluke, who got where he is because of his organizing skills, rather than his money.
The question of participation to me is somewhat separate-- how to get people to participate in larger numbers in campaigns. I think Obama got people engaged, and then they gave money-- ie, the money flows from the nature of the campaign. This may mean that it will be harder for another, less charismatic candidate to repeat. What is good is the fact that Obama, as an organizer, is very conscious of building an organization; so perhaps he can figure out ways of institutionalizing the level of participation, so that it will outlast his personal involvement. Revitalize the party at the roots. I don't know if it can be done, apart from his personal appeal, but it is interesting to watch as it develops.
June 25, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink