Money and Politics – Political Campaigns
Now that the 2020 election is over, it is a good time to think about solutions to the broken system that we have for electing our public servants. I think everyone of any political persuasion would agree that the main problem with politics today is the influence of money.
There are a lot of ways that money can buy political influence, but a lot of money today comes from political campaigns that run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, forever. Most state and federal office-holders raise funds continuously, and their campaign organizations remain mostly intact after an election. This naturally leads to a couple of conflicts of interest. First, we elect office-holders to do a job or represent us in government. In most cases this is a full-time job (you might even consider being a member of the Texas legislature as a full-time responsibility), that should not have the constant distraction of political fundraising. In addition, there is the conflict of interest between the politics of a campaign and the responsibility of public office. Without clear separation you have to be concerned about the unbalanced influence of political campaign donors.
It has gotten to be that a political candidate’s potential to be elected is based on how much money they can raise. You will notice that I did not say on how much a candidate can spend. Most political campaigns raise more money than they spend. While politicians cannot use campaign funds for personal expenses, they can spend it on almost anything else, and they do. One of the most common ways to spend campaign money is to donate to another politician’s campaign or to a political party committee, which then spreads the money around. This can have the effect of overcoming limits on campaign donations, and supporting candidates who are not able to generate public support for their own campaigns. Texas governor Greg Abbott for example has a considerable campaign surplus, and donated generously to Texas republican campaigns in 2020 to ensure that he has a republican legislature to work with. Texas legislators routinely use campaign funds to supplement staff salaries, again blurring the lines between campaign and legislative staff. And Texas legislators are notorious for exchanging gifts with each other using campaign funds, a practice that for some reason is not illegal.
In Texas and some other states, there are no limits to the amount of individual donations to political campaigns (Texas politicians cannot accept corporate contributions). This has led to massive contributions by wealthy donors. Studies have clearly shown that campaign donors have better access to office-holders than non-donors, and there are many examples of corrupt influence by political campaign donors. There are limits to political campaign contributions at the federal level, but these limits have become irrelevant due to the explosion of political actions committees (PACs) and joint party committees that can accept much higher contribution levels. As a result, individuals can contribute about $500,000 to a federal political candidate using various committee organizations. You can also defeat the intent of contribution limits by donating thru a charitable organization that subsequently donates to a PAC. Since charitable organizations do not have to report who donates to them, the money ultimately going to a PAC is from anonymous donors and can’t be tracked. Again, you see the potential influence of mega-donors.
What can be done about the influence of campaign contributions in politics? First thing is to stop the continuous campaign cycles. Interestingly, the City of Austin has a template – campaigns for city office can only operate beginning 365 days before an election. We should carry this limit on campaign activities to the state and federal level. Where there is a primary election, the 365 day rule should relate to a general election. I would actually like to see challengers to an office have an advantage to overcome incumbency. I would propose that active campaigning begin for a challenger 90 days before an incumbent. That would level the fund-raising playing field somewhat and help to ensure that an incumbent stays focused on the business of government.
Ending the continuous campaign cycle will do a lot to stop the influence of campaign politics on office-holder decision-making. But we also need to prohibit the use of campaign funds to finance activities of public office, including staff salaries. Campaign activities should be clearly distinct from public office activities and campaign staff should always be separate from office staff, in work and travel.
Contributions from one campaign to another should be prohibited, and there should be clear limits on political party spending on specific campaigns.
Charitable organizations that contribute to PACs, and maybe even to political campaigns, should be required to disclose their individual donors and allocate donations, so that individual donor contributions can be tracked consistent with regulatory limits.
The rules for PACs and joint committees are so complex that I would have to spend time that I don’t want to spend to try and understand how it all works. Let’s just say that there should be limits on donations from a single entity, whether individual or corporate. We need to get to a place where politicians serve their constituents, are accountable thru election to those constituents, and are not influenced by political contributions.
Waterloo to Austin 