Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Yesterday the supreme court decided FEC v Bennett, aka McComish v Bennett aka sundry other things. I'll have a post up shortly about the dissent's comments about disclaimers, but first this. In a new york times blog, hasen and others discuss the impact of the decision.
Where to Now on Public Financing?
How will the Supreme Court's rejection of an Arizona matching-funds law affect the political landscape?
New York City as a Model?
Public financing, now that it can no longer be promoted as evening the playing field, Harrison Bergeron-style, is often promoted as an alternative to corruption.
In New York, there is a matching funds provision whereby donations of up to $175 get matched 6-1. To me, this is an open invitation to corruption. It turns every political race into a horse race where those in the know have a sure thing, a horse that pays out 6-1. New York is one of those places that has a culture of corruption, part of the local culture that has continued since Tammany Hall days. Boston, Chicago, New Orleans and parts of Philadephia are similar. There are rural examples as well.
I am no Damon Runyon, and this post won't have the colorful idioms it deserves.
But as someone with a long time interest in game theory and political shennanigans, it's not hard to see how this matching funds program provides leverage for schemes that include legal, illegal,and a broad gray area in between.
Probably legal: Society hostess invites her friends to a tea party to meet local candidate, where there is an expectation, a social norm, that those who attend will contribute $175 each. 100 guests at 175 x 6. $100,500, less expense of tea and sandwiches. Local candidate gets elected and society hostess now has a friend at city hall, and can get invited to fancy dinners.
Probably illegal: City worker/union member/community organizer/etc, call him "joe", told to contribute $175 to campaign, "or else", but "you'll get it back." Campaign gets matching funds, $175x6= 1050, joe gets $250 in a brown envelope, campaign pockets $800. Times 100 = $80,000.
Gray area. Joe is invited to a beer and brats lunch, hears a rousing speech by candidate, is asked to pony up $175, does. $1050 to campaign. Campaign drops by Joe's house with 50 signs, asks him if he would put them up for $200 and talk up the campaign with his friends. Times 1000 = $850,000.
Given the mix of New York's culture of corruption and the structure of this matching funds program, I see it as an open invitation to graft and looting of public funds.
Is this the model we want to promote nationally? Will we call it "clean elections"?
Where to Now on Public Financing?
How will the Supreme Court's rejection of an Arizona matching-funds law affect the political landscape?
New York City as a Model?
Public financing, now that it can no longer be promoted as evening the playing field, Harrison Bergeron-style, is often promoted as an alternative to corruption.
In New York, there is a matching funds provision whereby donations of up to $175 get matched 6-1. To me, this is an open invitation to corruption. It turns every political race into a horse race where those in the know have a sure thing, a horse that pays out 6-1. New York is one of those places that has a culture of corruption, part of the local culture that has continued since Tammany Hall days. Boston, Chicago, New Orleans and parts of Philadephia are similar. There are rural examples as well.
I am no Damon Runyon, and this post won't have the colorful idioms it deserves.
But as someone with a long time interest in game theory and political shennanigans, it's not hard to see how this matching funds program provides leverage for schemes that include legal, illegal,and a broad gray area in between.
Probably legal: Society hostess invites her friends to a tea party to meet local candidate, where there is an expectation, a social norm, that those who attend will contribute $175 each. 100 guests at 175 x 6. $100,500, less expense of tea and sandwiches. Local candidate gets elected and society hostess now has a friend at city hall, and can get invited to fancy dinners.
Probably illegal: City worker/union member/community organizer/etc, call him "joe", told to contribute $175 to campaign, "or else", but "you'll get it back." Campaign gets matching funds, $175x6= 1050, joe gets $250 in a brown envelope, campaign pockets $800. Times 100 = $80,000.
Gray area. Joe is invited to a beer and brats lunch, hears a rousing speech by candidate, is asked to pony up $175, does. $1050 to campaign. Campaign drops by Joe's house with 50 signs, asks him if he would put them up for $200 and talk up the campaign with his friends. Times 1000 = $850,000.
Given the mix of New York's culture of corruption and the structure of this matching funds program, I see it as an open invitation to graft and looting of public funds.
Is this the model we want to promote nationally? Will we call it "clean elections"?
Comments:
Post a Comment
