MoveOn's broken record

MoveOn is an organization that's been which fights tough battles. Look at the EFF. They have almost no funding and lost most of their battles.

If you're an activist you just have to become used to this fact. All the rules are against us. Martin Luther King can be quoted extensively in this area. In order to win the war you must loose a few battles. Sometimes the path is the destination.

I find it interesting what Republicans both ignore and at the same time criticize.

George Bush stealing the 2000 election... good.

Soros giving money to MoveOn... bad.

Soros giving money is fine. Hypocrisy from those who feel that campaign contributions should be limited and regulated but are fine with big money as long as it goes to the left is not fine.

Bush didn't steal anything.

Why are people in such a tizzy about Soros? Conservative billionaires like Scaife, Murdoch, and Moon have been pouring money for decades into think tanks(Heritage, AEI), money-losing publications (Washington Times, Weekly Standard), smear campaigns (The Arkansas Project), and even an entire TV station (Fox). Liberals try to start doing the same thing and all of a sudden its evidence McCain-Feingold was bad?? Makes no sense - Soros is just replicating conservative actions that happened for years before McCain-Feingold. Can you tell me what the difference is between conservative daddy warbucks and liberal ones?

Also, I don't quite understand your comment about "anti-globalizers" - are you saying everyone who wants to see Bush voted out of office is anti-globalization? If you are indeed saying this, please give me an an honest assessment of whether the Clinton admn. or the current one has a better trade on free trade. (Hint: check out the Bush admninistration's trade record in steel and agriculture).

I've said it twice above, but I guess I have to say it a third time: I don't have a problem with people exercizing their right to speech by donating to causes they believe in--conservative or liberal. But those on the left who support campaign finance laws can't have it both ways: either they want money out of politics or they don't.

I'm certainly not saying anything like "everyone who wants to see Bush voted out of office is anti-globalization," though it is true that you will find a high correlation. It is also true that Bush's record on trade is spotty at best and the steel tarrifs and farm subsidies are an embarassment (though he's hardly been alone in his support of these programs.) My point is that it sure seems tome that Soros is a globalizer who has guilt about it and so gives to left wingers who overlook his role in disrupting global currency markets and impoverishing nations because they want his money.

Those darn leftists, always corrupting the political system with their big spending!

Yes, this is true.

On a serious note, Chris (if you're still reading this thread), do you have any better ideas than campaign finance reform to prevent open bribery? Seriously, if we got rid of all campaign finance laws, wha'ts to stop a company from donating say $1M to a politician, and then miraculously they get some legislation they like? Its pretty darn close to that now but at least there are some controls.

The Wall Street Journal crowd seems to want all campaign finance laws to be abolished but this just seems to be a formula for more corruption. I understand the concerns about speech restrictions, but it goes to the core of our democracy that people shouldn't be able to buy legislation from politicians. Its hard to have a liberal democracy when this activity is going on.

What's your solution to this problem?

My solution #1: throw the bums out!

It's amazing to me that we are going after the junkies (the special interests buying the goods) rather than the dealers (the politician selling the favors.) A big component of that is transparency of who's getting paid what and what actions they are taking. This is the tragedy of McCain/Feingold: it doesn't reduce money it just makes it less transparent by pushing it out of the party and to the frindges. We as a society should have a greater emphasis in our media, in blogs, in person, about whether we are happy with the performance of our politicians and should punish them for corrupt behavior. But unfortunately gerrymandering has proven it to be very difficult to remove incumbents. We should focus on these two things: transparency and making competitive districts to put more pressure on our politicians to behave well--or pay the penalty. The first can be done privately and the second needs to be done publically.

We have the right, ability, and obligation to punish politicians for pork--we should.

My solution #2: limit the ability for politicians to sell goods. Special interests are rewarded how? Usually it's in the form of tax breaks and regulation. What many from the left don't grasp is that regulation is often WELCOMED by the industry that is regulated. Regulations, while sometimes well intented, often serve merely to increase the costs of doing business in an industry, which usually gets pass along to the customer and increases the barriers to new entrants into an industry. And often when the regulaitons hurt one group, it is a competitive group that is pushing for the rules (consider that the leading special interest advocating regulating the Baby Bels is AT&T--on behalf of the "consumer,"... right.)

The solution is to limit congress's ability to use legislation, taxation, and regulation as tools for them to employee special favors. This means flatter taxes, flatter regulaitons, and flatter legislation. There are some creative ideas about how to do this, and I've written about them on R21.

Bottom line: a bad solution is not better than no solution, especially when it infrindges on clear constitutional rights and darkens transparency. Let's not focus on the folks spending money, let's focus on the folks selling the favors.

Its funny, conservatives and liberals often have the same argument over and over: do you control a market by limiting supply, or demand? I guess my gut belief is that as long as demand exists, supply will appear to meet it. So if you want to get rid of said problem, limit the demand. This goes for market for drugs, as well as legislation.

Also: I don't think your suggestions on independent policy boards really fix the problem, since someone has to appoint people to those "independent" policy board you are proposing. Clever legislators determined to sell legislation will find a way. The system only works if people act in good faith and moderate their behavior to not take advantage of the system.

But I think we can both agree that between gerrymandering, redistricting, and money in politics, its a long way from the ideal situation.

Only difference is (to your supply v. demand point and comparison with drugs), in this instance limiting demand means infringing on the first amendment and essential liberties. What does it mean to have freedom of expression, except when that expression is meant to influence others? That's not very free. Taking your argument, the solution is easy: ban all contributions to politicians, period, and have elections be state financed. This means thet governments should essentially run their own elections and pick their own leaders--that's nighmarish. This prospect, as many on the left would have it, means that instead of Joe taxpayer choosing who he supports, the government will prohibit him from spending his money freely and instead will take it by force through taxes and spend it on those he doesn't agree with. That way lies tyranny.

On the independent policy boards, several states have tried having independent boards draw the lines of their cogressional districts and it works well. Much of government, from the Supreme Court to the Fed to countless bureaucracies work by appointment processes.