Campaign Finance Reform

On January 21, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the matter of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Their ruling eliminated any limits on political spending by corporations.

I don't propose to get into the legal background of this case. I'm not a lawyer, and odds are neither are you. Instead I'm going to talk about democracy, and about what happens next.

Campaign finance reform is the one big issue that I've never published a position on. I had hoped to avoid the issue because, frankly, both sides made me uncomfortable, and I saw no obvious solution. One side of the debate advocated limiting free political speech, which, even if applied under the very limited circumstances of corporate ads, is still a very dangerous power for Congress to have. But the other side advocated unlimited, unregulated spending on campaigns, which is also anathema to me for a number of reasons. No solution I've ever heard proposed made me happy, because they all had one of these flaws. So I stayed out of it.

This was foolish. I apologize. It won't happen again. The SCOTUS ruling showed me that I had to take the matter back to first principles and find my own solution, as I have with so many other issues. And the first step, as always, is to identify the problem.

As I've posted before, a functioning democracy requires an informed populace. If the people don't know the facts, it's simply impossible for them to make good decisions; the voice of the people is not the voice of God. So for democracy to work, any democracy, the people need accurate information, even if that information is detrimental to those in power. This is why we have freedom of speech.

I'm not saying that's the only reason, of course. Freedom of speech is a natural human right, but when one's goal is to build a functioning democracy, it takes on additional significance. Without freedom of speech and the press, freedom to criticize the government without interference from it, democracy simply can not work.

But then, what do we do about the liars? The spread of disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies breaks the system. We know this goes on every day, from every side. People and groups who do so prefer the advancement of their own agenda to the very survival of democracy. It's sad, but such people seem to make up the majority of the political scene these days. I've made it my task to fight such people. Democracy is the best governmental system there is, and I won't stand by while it's destroyed in the name of beating the other guy.

So here we have our fundamental conflict. On one hand, we can not restrict criticism of the government, which means that the government can have no control over the content of political advertising. On the other hand, we need to make sure that lies do not drown out truth by sheer volume. Both of these are necessary, or democracy fails. And the only way to accomplish both is to, in some way, restrict the purchase of ads.

Believe it or not, Congress actually had the right idea in that regard. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS was also right; Congress just can't do that. Which means that to fix this once and for all, we need to pass an amendment to the Constitution, giving Congress very limited power to regulate the purchasing of political advertising. We need to modify the first amendment.

As I write this, I realize that this is why I was afraid to take up this issue. There was never any chance that I could end up anywhere else. For most of my life, the very concept of modifying the first amendment would have been unthinkable. But I've realized a very important truth: the US Constitution is not holy writ, and those who wrote it weren't gods.

The founders were politicians who hammered out a compromise that fit their circumstances. They didn't see the politics of today. They didn't see a country where the information reaching the voter is dominated by advertising, instead of by journalism. They didn't see a world with a 95% incumbency reelection rate despite 20% approval ratings, or where the winner is the candidate who can raise the most money. They didn't see a world where money could be used to break democracy.

This is our country, now, today. It's time we took responsibility for our fate.

As such, I am proposing an amendment which will define freedom of speech to specifically not include paid political advertising. Vocal, journalistic and editorial freedom will remain untouched. Parties, unions, and corporations will still be able to express their desires and opinions. But they will no longer be able to use their financial resources to give their opinions greater influence than the opinions held by others. In the true spirit of our republic, everyone's voice will be equal.

As always, the details are subject to discussion. There are distinct differences between issue ads and candidate ads, and when it comes to a corporation or other group, the line between an issue ad and general advertising is at times not terribly clear. As such, my immediate inclination is to eliminate candidate ads only, except when paid for by the candidate themselves. The vast majority individuals almost never buy candidate ads, so the practical change to the rights of the individual in this country is almost zero. And to maintain equality of voice, it should be required that when a candidate purchases an ad, they must also purchase an equivalent ad for all other candidates for the same position.

Everyone can still say what they want, they just can't buy a megaphone to shout down everyone else. There will no longer be limits on donations, the donations will simply be rendered far less relevant to the outcome. Money will have much less influence in determining the winner. Propaganda ads will be immediately countered, forcing the voter to find out for themselves what is true. Our officials will spend more time governing and less time fundraising.

Of course, this will obviously result in considerably less political advertising all around. I'm sure you all find that just as sad as I do.

Now, there are certain other details. The government would have to maintain a list of candidates, which is impossible with the electoral college. That would have to be eliminated, making the Presidency a true national election. That needed doing anyway.

We would also need to define a single set of ballot access criteria for that office, which should be low enough that one need not be rich simply to get on the ballot in the first place. We needed to do that too.

And if ballot access was easy enough, we could easily see dozens of candidates for the Presidency. Plurality voting just doesn't work for that many; it really doesn't work for any more than two candidates. We have yet another reason to switch to a system where one would rank the candidates in order of preference.

And so, in consideration of all these issues, I propose the following:

--------------------------

The Comprehensive Electoral Reform Amendment

1. The President shall be elected by popular vote; the electoral college is nullified.
2. All elections for the Presidency or US Congress shall be held via a ranked preference method, such as the Schulze method or Instant Runoff.
3. For all elections for federal office, there will be a master list of all candidates, maintained by the federal government for the Presidency, or by the state governments for the US Congress.
4. The requirements for being added to any list of candidates shall in no case exceed 1000 signatures of registered voters and $5000.
5. All candidates must be registered no fewer than 270 days before the general election.
6. There shall be no limit to the number of candidates.
7. At the discretion of Congress in the case of the Presidency, or of the state in Congressional offices, a series of primary elections may be held among registered candidates, to reduce their number. There must be at least thirty days between each primary election, and the final primary must be held no less than sixty days before the general election. Congress or the states, as appropriate, shall determine a maximum number of candidates to take part in the general election; in no case shall this limit be fewer than six.
8. No one but a registered candidate or group thereof may purchase an ad referencing a registered candidate; any media outlet selling or donating such an ad shall be penalized. This shall by no means be construed as a limit on the editorial or journalistic freedom of the media outlet.
9. Whenever a candidate purchases an ad, they must also purchase an equivalent ad for all other candidates.

--------------------------

The simple redefinition of "free speech" to not include paid ads leads naturally to many other needed reforms in our election system, while doing no damage to anything but our unjustified deification of the founders' wisdom. With one amendment, we can fix many issues that have plagued this country for decades. We can return to a true democracy, where all our voices are both free and equal.

I look forward to the discussion.