Campaign Finance

E J Dionne has a column in the Washington Post today decrying in apocalyptic tones the recent Supreme Court decision that no limitations can be placed on political speech by corporations. (Repairing Citizens United become a test for three GOP senators) His point is that now corporations can spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of an election in the way they want, and corporations have an almost unlimited amount of money to spend--certainly more than any other organization. He argues that if this is going to be the case, then everyone should be able to agree that such contributions should be disclosed.

Another article in the New York Times (Interest Group Spending Drives G.O.P. Lead in Ads, by Michael Luo) seems to confirm Dionne's worst fears. Not only are the Republicans, through outside interest groups, outspending the Democrats this year, but as it is now it is difficult to tell exactly who is funding these groups.

Two observations can be made about these articles. First, the Republicans and their supporters in business have always had more money than the Democrats, and attempts to restrict or publicize business spending have resulted only in the creation of more and more devious ways to get around such restrictions. Campaign spending is like taxes: no matter what the restrictions and rules on taxes or contributions, the rich  have always been able to hire lawyers to find ways around them. This is a fact of life and should be accepted. The net result of all of the restrictions since 1907 have been only to complicate and fragment the parties the candidates supposedly represent.

The second observation is that business is not a monolithic, single minded entity. It is not automatic that a given business will support the Republican candidate. Both parties should be able to benefit from the absence of restrictions. The Democrats may not benefit as much, but on the other hand the Democrats largely have labor on their side. The more important point is that the competition for financial support is as much a part of the political process as is the competition for votes in an election, and should not be restricted.

For me the attempt to "reform" politics by restricting contributions to parties or candidates has been a failure, and should be abandoned. I would suggest that instead of trying to restrict who contributes to campaigns, it would be more effective to restrict who the contributors could contribute to. A more effective measure, one that has been in place in England for over a century, is to allow contributions only to parties. No one would be able to contribute anything to an individual candidate: such contributions would and should be considered bribery. Likewise, the candidate could accept or solicit contributions from no one except the party he represents. This would leave the candidate free to focus on the issues in his campaign, without pressure to please interested individuals or organizations outside of his party.

This, it seems to me, would be a more effective solution, and would make politics more honest.

Government shutdown

Republican Representative Westmoreland has suggested that if the Republicans gain control of the House, they could decide to confront the President and his programs by threatening to simply refuse to fund them, leading to a complete shutdown. Gingrich did this in 1995, but backed down fairly quickly. It would be interesting if this were done again, and more seriously. The issue becomes one of who is in charge, the House or the President and his executive branch. In this case the Senate would be powerless, since they would not have anything to obstruct. If the House were able to force the President to back down and follow the direction of the House, this would ultimately be good for the country. The House would acquire more authority. If it followed up by reorganizing itself to assert that authority consistently over time, it would produce a revolutionary change in the way the government operates, the kind of change I would like to see. The President would become subordinate to the House leadership. The Senate would still be a problem when the House gets around to positive legislation, rather than just opposing the President, but the Senate could be taken care of. It would be a step for which there would be no turning back, once it is done. It would be equivalent to the revolt of the British Parliament against Charles II in 1688, where the King was definitively subordinated to Parliament. The leader of the House majority would become effectively a Prime Minister.

Again, such an event would be very interesting.

A Future of Gridlock

President Obama has done a lot in his first two years in office, for good or ill, in changing American society: he passed health care reform, tightened the regulation of financial institutions, and attempted to stimulate the economy through government spending. None of this was done easily, even though he had a clear majority in both houses of Congress, and his majorities were  in favor of the changes he wanted. The reason for the difficulty was not his own party: it was the minority party, with its ability to block in the Senate legislation it did not like, that made passing Democratic programs difficult. Although the above legislation did finally get passed, it was not without interminable delays and obstruction, requiring compromises and complications in each case that made even initial supporters of the legislation dislike it in the end. Although Republicans did not succeed in totally blocking the legislation, they did succeed in making good bills into bad bills.

Now we have new elections soon to take place, and most of the predictions are that the Republicans will gain seats, and may even be able to take over control of the House. For most governments around the world, if one party is able to take over from another party control of the House, that would mean that it will be able to enact its programs for the country. If in fact the Republicans are able to take control of the House, they should be able to enact their programs-whatever they are-and move the country in the direction they want. This should be what it means to have majority rule.

Unfortunately, in our system, this is not what is going to happen. The reality is that no matter how enthusiastic and energized the Republicans are, no matter how many seats they gain, the result will be more, and more intense, gridlock. Nothing will get done for the next two years. Of course some people, the rich, who can take care of themselves, who are able to use the government for their own ends, are glad to have the government doing nothing-other than what they want the government to do. For the rest of us, we want the government to serve the people- or at least the majority of the people as represented by the majority party, either Republicans or Democrats or the Tea Party, whichever has the majority. But this is not how our government works.

Is this any way to run a government? Are there no alternatives? Are we doomed to a slavish adherence to a sacred Constitution as interpreted by the high priests of Constitutional law? I believe there is an alternative, one that does not need to engage in disputes about the Constitution. This blog and the book I have written are an attempt to present an alternative to the present status quo. I have written a book because the changes I propose require first a change in how we think about our history.

Power to the President

The continuing tensions built into our government have weakened and distracted governance throughout our history, and have contributed to crises our country has endured, such as the Civil War and the Depression. A system in continual turmoil, as is the American government, tries to resolve the strain by clarifying and rationalizing the structure.  It is natural to seek ways to reduce tension so governing can be more efficient and effective.

Among those who have written about these pressures and about how to develop better government, the predominant advice has been to “get politics out of government,” specifically to remove the influence of parties and special interests from government; they are seen as the sources of the failures of effective governance.[1] Removing such influences from government, however, gives more power to the President.  Since 1900 giving more power to the President has been an explicit part of many recommendations for reform, starting with the Progressive movement in the early 1900s. These reform advocates have been successful:  The President has become more powerful over the last century.

Giving the President more power has been the path of least resistance for the U.S. in resolving problems of effectiveness and efficiency. Corwin[2] demonstrated the “aggrandizement of power,” of the Presidency since Jefferson, and Schlesinger, in reaction to the Nixon era, updated this earlier account of the evolution of Presidential power  in The Imperial Presidency. [3]   With the G. W. Bush administration we saw just another ratchet in the growth of Presidential power.[4]

Increasing the influence of the President has a certain logic:  The President is elected by all the people, and so represents all the people. He can be trusted to do what is best for the people. Besides, if he does not do a good job, he can be replaced after four years, or at most after eight years. For most people identify the really great Presidents--Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR--are great because they were strong and forceful leaders who got things done over the resistance of Congress.

---

[1] see Skowronek, Stephen   Building a New American State: the Extension of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; La Raja, Raymond J.  Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform   Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008

[2] Corwin, E.S. The President: Office and Powers  New York University Press, New York, 1957

[3] Schlesinger, Arthur M.  The Imperial Presidency  Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1973

[4] Savage, Charlie   Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy   New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2007

The filibuster

Proposals to get rid of or mitigate the effects of the Senate filibuster seem to have increased lately. Daily Kos is circulating a petition to Congress to eliminate the filibuster, the New Yorker had a recent article on the inanity and ridiculousness of many Senate rules, not just the filibuster, and Norman Ornstein recently had an article in the New York Times about fixing the filibuster. It would be good to get rid of the filibuster. It would certainly improve the process of passing bills. The likelihood of getting any changes under the present circumstances is remote, however. Neither party is willing to give up a source of bargaining power in dealing with the other party. The supposed virtues of bipartisan decision making trumps the operation of simple majority rule. Without an underlying change in the dynamics of the relations among the President, the Senate, and the House, a direct attack on the filibuster will not be successful. A lot of other changes are necessary before pressure on the Senate will be strong enough to induce it to change its procedures. My book is an attempt to provide a deeper analysis of the problem, one that suggests how to make these other changes.

Gridlock

As an addendum to the previous post, I want to make it clear that my point is that although people may be strongly critical of what the government is or is not doing, the basic form of the government is not questioned. To continue...

The Senate has established itself, with unlimited debate and the filibuster, as the opposition to the House, and to national government action. It has been the source of Congressional gridlock; this gridlock is the primary cause of the people’s frustrations with Congress today. A common expression of this aggravation, dating back at least to the 1930s, is “What we need is a good dictatorship!”[1]

Gridlock has been a perennial characteristic of our government, and justified as the price we have to pay for democracy. We have accepted repeated gridlock, delay, and distortion of the will of the people.  It is just the way politics work, we are told. These are the checks and balances we have been led to believe we need.

The ongoing battle between the President and Congress and between the House and the Senate has at least wasted time and effort.  Today their stalemate evokes  disrespect from the governed population.   The conflict is basically one of power:  who is in charge.  The legislature wants control over how the legislation it enacts is implemented, and so has tried to exert influence over the executive officers in charge of carrying out the legislation.  At every point, though, and with increasing animosity, the President has resisted these efforts, claiming only he controls the Executive. The courts have largely upheld the President--encouraging and institutionalizing the continuation of the conflicts.

With the beginning of the 20^th century, the tension over who is in charge increased considerably as the role of the federal government became much more complex and influential to the country. As federal agencies were established to regulate national affairs, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Trade Commission, who is in charge of these agencies, the President, Congress or the judiciary became an issue within the national government.  Fisher’s book on the politics of shared power[2] documents these continual conflicts between the President and Congress, and the mountain of time and effort spent in their quarrels.

---

[1] Remini, Robert   The House: The History of the House of Representatives  HarperCollins Publishers: New York, 2006, p 311

[2]  Fisher, Louis   Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President, 5^th Edition, Revised  Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 2007