For years many of us have been calling for some form of election reform….they have heard our calls…but their idea of reform is to control the funds that are given to campaigns…..everyone is yelling about the cash that is spent on and by campaigns….it is a legitimate concern but there is more to election reform than the amount of money that is thrown around….
There has been a movement since 1867 to try and control the amount of money in campaigns that in turn gives some more influence in politics than others…..and the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court has crapped all over that movement, when they ruled that corporations could directly donate to campaigns…this will give corporations unbridled influence and in turn will give even more than now, more say in what will be considered by the Congress and the Prez as important issues of the day.
I am, among others, talking about such other things, beyond campaign funds, like term limits, accessibility to third parties to the electoral process, etc…….
On term limits the Cato Institute has some very good points in favor:
Lesson One. Term limits stimulate political competition. That is accomplished in a variety of ways, from increasing the number of open seats and special elections to lowering the reelection rates of incumbents. Many former incumbents return to private life, and a significant number run for other offices, thereby stimulating political competition at other levels. There is also evidence to suggest that campaigns may be less costly in a term-limited electoral environment. Under term limits, California’s state campaign spending since 1992 is 44 percent lower than from 1984 to 1988.
Lesson Two. Term limits increase legislative diversity. The prospect of shorter political careers is also changing the characteristics of people who choose to seek public office, encouraging political participation by nonprofessional politicians. Hence, the occupational makeup of state legislatures is gradually moving away from the traditional preponderance of ex-lawyers and ex-political aides. In California in 1995 there were only 3.4 percent self-described full-time state legislators, down from 36 percent in 1986, and three times more legislators are now business people than were previously.
Lesson Three. Term-limited legislatures undergo positive institutional changes. As institutions, they become more merit based and less governed by an outdated seniority system. Term limits eliminate the possibility of entrenched legislative leaders dominating a legislative chamber. Leadership positions (especially that of Speaker) become less powerful as a more decentralized power structure evolves in response to the growing independence of term-limited freshmen legislators. Generally speaking, freshman legislators tend to ask tougher questions of bureaucrats and demand a higher level of performance from government agencies than did their predecessors.
Lesson Four. Term limits act as a natural campaign finance reform. Term limits diminish the value of a legislative seat to lobbyists and the special interests they represent in state capitals. That reduces the incentive for lobbyists to raise and to distribute the large “soft money” contributions so disliked by the political establishment. In states as dissimilar as Maine, Michigan, and Ohio there is evidence that lobbyists are unsettled by the term limits-induced need to build new political relationships from scratch.
Lesson Five. Term limits improve the quality of legislation. The continual infusion of fresh blood into state legislatures is improving public policy. By mandating frequent legislative turnover, term limits are bringing new perspectives to state legislatures, reducing the concentration on reelection, and thereby diminishing the incentive for wasteful election-related pork barrel spending that flourishes in a careerist legislative culture.
A good case for term limits……
What about third party politics? Here is a doozy of a subject—-third party politics is almost non-existent in the US…yes there is a wealth of single issue parties but few get on ballots and even fewer are anywhere close to successful. The biggest argument against this is that they point to Europe and their need for coalitions to govern…personally I think that is a lame excuse……they do not like the idea that a candidate could get less than 50% of the vote and still be the winner……and in the US they discourage any third party by making it all but impossible to get on a ballot…making it hard because of the number of signatures needed or the large sum of money to register the party…basically they give third parties ever obstacle they can imagine to keep them off of a ballot…..they cannot outlaw third parties outright because it would be anti-Constitutional, so they use legal trickery to do the same thing…keep third parties off of ballots…..
Personally, I think any party should be allowed on every ballot…it would make our system more democratic and make election watching far more interesting than it is now…..most people do not agree with me on this….they see ALL third parties as spoilers……..but they are the ones that think the two party system is the ONLY answer to a well run political system……apparently, they are not paying attention!
Well… yee-s… there’s a lot there….
Firstly, it doesn’t matter WHO can contribute if you cap campaign spending at a low enough level. If you ban some people from contributing, then the rich ones (and the parties themselves??) simply pay accountants and lawyers to find ways round it. Like i’ve said before (many times) – most legislation simply doesn’t work!
Secondly, limiting the number of time a politician can be elected is a good idea – BUT, people being the way they are – people, they will have no incentive at all to even turn up during a final term and will in any event be very busy setting up their future career during that final term – UNLESS you take serious steps to provide that incentive for them to continue working hard and (hopefully) honestly as human nature would dictate during a FIRST term.
Thirdly, European politics is the biggest load of corrupt crap on the planet, so don’t even go there with anything that would push the US in that direction! For the office of President, you have primaries in the US – I don’t know enough to understand if that is so for Senators, but there’s no reason you couldn’t have LOCAL primaries for that.
What WOULD help, though, is if you somehow limit the power of the parties themselves to fund and control their own candidates – or perhaps (if you can figure it out) even WHO they can accept as “their” candidate(s).
To your second point–that is where a recall would be useful……if they person is NOT doing their job then a referendum to recall them and start over……
There are primaries for everybody…sometimes it overlaps others not so……
Human nature……..humans will bend the rules and laws as often as they can….that is nature….
Exactly. I don’t think recall (though I have suggested it myself) is actually a good enough incentive – we need to think of something else.
However, the problem is clearly the influence of the parties – if politicians could put forward their OWN ideas and were able to realistically promote them, then that would be a step in the right direction – a small step, but a step nevertheless. At the moment there is ENORMOUS pressure to “toe the party line”.
I’m not convinced the goods outweigh the bad regarding term limits. Think about people like Ted Kennedy who grew into his role as the liberal “lion” of the Senate. If he had been limited to even 12 years how much worse off would we be now?
I’ve read that in California, term limits have harmed the state. Elected officials finally get good their jobs only to be forced out to make way for more newbies. The result is chaos and a low level of competence.
Hiya Chris……I have heard that argument before….but I think it is just an argument point…..look at now….none of our elected officials seem to have competency……there only competency is on how to slow down the governing process with tricks, lies and games….not sure that is in the best interest of the country…
Look at the seniority system in the Congress…that does not necessarily give us the best leader and I feel the same about elections and the Reps. longevity in the Congress…they may not be the best Rep of the people just the ones with the biggest campaign fund…..
So change the funding!!!!
The Supreme Court just changed the funding apparatus…..but I agree, we need to find another way beyond the system you labor under now…..I think it will take more than one alteration to the system……start with funding but do NOT stop there……
Oh, I couldn’t agree MORE!
Personally I’d NOT allow outside funding at all and ONLY give each candidate the same money and opportunities as every other candidate, paid for by the people.
Result: pretty much the end of corporation funding, end of union funding, end of pressure group funding – end of all political influence by non politicians! Suddenly, the voter would be king!
It is a great idea….there are those here that want public financing of campaigns….where each candidate has the same amount to work with…..it is an idea whose time has long come…..and now we have the SC and that damn stupid ruling that corporations are individuals,,,,,nothing good can come out of that….
I agree, but we’re sort of back to the beginning again, aren’t we…?
It wouldn’t matter whether corporations should be considered to be individuals (how stupid for a “supreme” anything to come up with that), if such “individuals” could not use their money to become seriously involved in the campaign.
Yep, it seems like we always travel in a circle, huh?
Sadly – yes…
I think you have a good point, Chris, but then so does Lobotero…
Actually, I wonder if it might help if any candidate with more than a high (an appropriately high) percentage of the vote in his/her area could be given an advantage next time around and one who failed to get more than a good showing could be barred from trying again.
Anyway – the system is flawed and busted – scrap it and start again, I say!
😆