Summary

What Kind of Democracy?

Most Americans told poll takers in 1999 that elections are "for sale," and that, ultimately, government operates "for a few big interests" instead of for "the benefit of all people." What's broken? How can it be fixed? Americans aren't sure, judging by public opinion surveys, and their eyes glaze over when politicians delve into the jargon of soft money and political action committees.

The flow of money in public life isn't a technical problem for accountants and lawyers to sort out -- it is an issue that raises the most fundamental questions about the kind of democracy Americans want. To prime deliberations, here are some questions and answers that highlight the differences between the three choices outlined in this guide:

What does the role of money in politics have to do with citizen alienation?

Choice One says that the high costs of privately financed campaigns force politicians to curry favor with special interests instead of serving the public interest.
Choice Two says the biggest problem is that the huge amount of money that special interests spend in lobbying public officials subverts the public interest.
Choice Three blames problems on what it considers to be misguided efforts to regulate the flow of money in politics; these efforts have backfired, harming democracy far more than any isolated scandal ever did.

What should be the role of government?

Choice One calls for campaign finance reforms, which can include a wide menu of regulatory restrictions on political contributions as well as numerous options for publicly funding election campaigns.
Choice Two calls for many restrictions on lobbyists as well as holding politicians more accountable by expanding the right of voters to enact laws and recall elected officials.
Choice Three calls for requiring candidates to immediately disclose all gifts and for scrapping an arcane system of restrictions on contributions for political purposes.

Every direction for public policy has its downside. What's a likely tradeoff for each choice?

In Choice One, which includes the option of public funding for all election campaigns, taxpayers would foot the bill for campaigns of candidates they favor and oppose, including fringe candidates and others who exploit the system.
In Choice Two, which would allow all voters to enact or repeal laws, citizens would be asked to decide complex issues with an up or down vote.
In Choice Three, which would permit unlimited political donations, the competition for raising and spending campaign funds would continue, giving an edge to candidates with the most contacts among wealthy donors.

Comparing the Choices

Alienation, distrust, and disillusionment are among the most common words used to describe American feelings about politics. How is the role of money in politics causing the problem? What can be done? To help citizens consider these questions, this discussion guide breaks the issue of money and politics down to some fundamental public policy perspectives, or choices. Each choice offers a different diagnosis of what's wrong, based on views and priorities voiced by many Americans in studies and surveys. Each choice also provides a direction for public action, or a way to approach the problem. These approaches include ideas and proposals that are drawn from across the political spectrum. Some elements of the choices are readily mixed, but not others, as each choice has its own priorities and agenda. An outline of the three choices appears on these pages.

Choice 1	Choice 2	Choice 3
Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising System Money is corrupting politics. The democratic principle of "one person, one vote" has become "one donor, much influence." Campaign finance reforms are needed to restore political equality.	Rein In Lobbyists and Politicians Campaign finance reform would just divert more special-interest money to lobbying, where the real problem is in politics. New curbs are needed on lobbyists and politicians to keep them honest	Publicize Political Donations, Don't Regulate Them Regulatory efforts to control money in politics have backfired, harming democracy far more than any isolated scandal ever did. We need to restore a freer system that worked well for two centuries.
What Can Be Done? Step up efforts to reform campiagn finance laws, which set the rules for playing politics honestly. Tighten rules on contributions. Consider permitting only individual citizens to make political contributions, limited to small sums. Consider replacing private contributions with a taxpayer-financed system of publicly funded election campaigns.	What Can Be Done? Ban lobbyists gifts, in all their disguises, including providing free services such as organizing political fund-raisers. Hold politicians accountable by expanding the use of recall votes and ballot measures, which would let voters enact state and federal laws. Require lobbyists and politicians to hold their meetings in public as a way to deter corruption and promote fairness.	What Can Be Done? Repeal all laws that clog and choke the democratic process with restrictions on political contributions. Encourage more investment in campaigns to make elections more competetive. Deter corruption by strictly enforcing a requirement that all political donations be disclosed immediately.
In This View It's time to close all loopholes in campaign finance laws, including ones that allow donors to write $500,000 checks to political parties. Publicly funding elections could save taxpayers money in the long run by reducing public spending for such things as special tax breaks for corporations. With tight curbs on gifts, elected officials would be freed from real and apparent conflicts of interest and be better able to focus on the public interest.	In This View Lobbyists for special interests should not be allowed to deluge public officials with gifts, and politicians should not be allowed to accept them. Campaign finance reforms are of little value because they will simply shift more special interest spending to lobbying. Ballot initiatives permit citizens to make laws when lawmakers are either unwilling or unable to follow the public will.	In This View Expensive campaigns make headlines, but overall, campaign spending is an inadequate investment, amounting to an estimated $10 per eligible voter every two years for all elections in the nation. Fund-raising rules promote political gridlock; challengers can't raise enough money to run competitive races. It takes money to compete in elections, but money can't buy them. The way to deter corruption is to require prompt disclosure of all political gifts.
In Contrary Views Prior regulatory reforms have failed, and this choice would gum up the system with more restrictions on everyone's political freedom. The campaign fund-raising competition serves a useful purpose; it gives voters a good sense of each candidate's leadership skills. This choice maligns "special interests," but there is nothing wrong with like-minded retailers, teachers, or fire fighters joining groups that promote their interests.	In Contrary Views This choice attacks lobbyists, but democracy couldn't run effectively without these professionals who speak on behalf of all segments of society. In attacking lobbyists, this choice is really just an attack against lobbyists who represent opposing views. Ballot measures don't give citizens any more power, as special interests often bankroll these campaigns to get what they want.	In Contrary Views Letting the rich write even bigger checks to politicians is no way to restore public confidence in a system bloated with special interest money. When politicians become big-time fund-raisers, special interests gain greater influence. Is better public disclosure really all that's needed to deter corruption? Then why is it that politicians now openly accept gifts from special interests with matters pending before government?
A Likely Tradeoff? Public funding for election campaigns would require taxpayers to foot the bill for campaigns of candidates they favor and those they oppose, including fringe candidates and others who would exploit the system.	A Likely Tradeoff? Sharp restrictions on lobbying would be difficult to enforce, and greater use of ballot measures would put complex issues to up or down votes at the polls.	A Likely Tradeoff? Permitting unlimited political donations would stimulate existing fund-raising competitions, giving the edge to candidates with the most wealthy connections.

Welcome | About this Event | Join the Dialogue | Briefing Book | Search