CitizenSovereignty.org

New ways for more people to participate in political life.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

TV News & feature reports on Deliberative Polls

  • Education Policy in Omagh, Northern Ireland
  • Europe Today: First-ever deliberative poll on Europe
  • San Mateo county housing Deliberative Poll
  • BBC Newsnight on Tomorrow's Europe
  • PBS By the People: Citizenship in the 21st Century

About Deliberative Polls and a Deliberation Day

  • American Association of State Colleges and Universites: Deliberative Polling® Project
  • Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy
  • A Better Way with Referendums
  • Deliberative Polls: An Introduction
  • Time Out - A review of Deliberation Day
  • The Nation in a Room -- Turning Public Opinion into Policy
  • Turning Public Opinion Into Policy

Deliberative Polls - Latest

  • Export this?
  • Picking Candidates by the Numbers
  • Vermont's Energy Future
  • Hungarian Deliberative Poll reveals informed opinion about unemployment
  • San Mateo Countywide Assembly on Housing Choices
  • Citizenship in the 21st Century
  • Tomorrow's Europe
  • Putting All of Europe in One Room
  • No One Knew What to Expect When a Chinese Town Tried Listening to its People
  • Time Out?
  • What Happens When A Random Sample of 343 Americans Talk Together About Iraq?

Preferring Patriot dollars to donuts

Images With retirement comes reflection. Stepping forward today in favor of campaign finance reform are Pamela Finmark and William Chalmers. Now that their political consulting and "donut" fundraising days now firmly behind them, they write in the Los Angeles Times that

"...the great Internet myth circulating today says...that online donors are democratizing the campaign finance system. They aren't. They are just putting a little more money into the system. The major donors are still the key to candidate survival....

"So what can we do? The best solution we have heard of is called the "patriot dollars" plan, put forth by Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres. Basically, it eliminates all hard contributions to candidates. Period. Instead, each voter is given a $50 ATM card so that he or she can literally vote with their dollars and contribute their $50, in part or in whole, to their choice of federal candidates. Simple enough. Let's do the math. We spend about $5 billion to $6 billion collectively on all federal elections. If the approximately 131 million who voted in November also had voted with $50 worth of patriot bucks, the donations would have equaled -- surprise -- $6.5 billion! That money would cover presidential, Senate and congressional races."


January 05, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

If Justice is not blind...should contributions to judges be?

Appeal_letter John Grisham's novel, The Appeal, is attracting a fair amount of attention to how state judicial elections are increasingly flush with financing from contestants at the bar.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is an emerging spokeswoman for reforms, of which there is a well-researched and lengthy menu to choose from.

Is it possible for a popular novel to deliver a consensus for arcane reform?  Maybe.  Okay, maybe is a little generous.

Is it conceivable that a simpler approach, like the secret donation booth, might, like Grisham's novel, catch on more quickly?  There is an advantage to simple, resonant analogies.

Countyelection_2 The County Election is a 19th century painting by George Caleb Bingham.  Here's the background, from A Brief Illustrated History of Voting by Douglas Jones at the University of Iowa:

The conduct of elections has changed in many ways over the past 200 years. The extent of these changes is nicely illustrated by a comparison of today's voting practices with those illustrated in George Caleb Bingham's painting, The County Election (Figure 1). In addition to being a noteworthy artist, Bingham was a successful politician; this painting shows a polling place on the steps of the courthouse in Saline County, Missouri, in 1846.

In this painting, we see the judge (top center) administering an oath to a voter.  The voter (in red) is swearing, with his hand on the bible, that he is entitled to vote and has not already done so.  There was no system of voter registration, so this oath and the possibility that the judge or someone else in the vicinity of the polls might recognize him if he came back was all that prevented a voter from voting again and again.

There was no right to a secret ballot; having been sworn in, the voter simply called out his choices to the election clerks who sit on the porch behind the judge tallying the vote.  Each clerk has a pollbook in which he writes the voter's name and records his votes; multiple pollbooks were a common defense against clerical error. There are several people in the painting holding paper tickets in their hands.  We know that these were not paper ballots because Missouri continued to use voice voting until 1863.  In a general election, however, many voters might have wanted to bring their own notes to the polling place.

Campaigning at the polling place was legal and common.  The man in blue tipping his hat to the voter immediately behind the man taking the oath is one of the candidates in this election, E. D. Sappington, who lost to Bingham by one vote.  He's handing out his calling cards so that people can easily read off his name to vote for him.

Voice votes offer modest protection against fraudulent vote counts:  An observer can easily maintain an independent tally of the votes, and since there is no ballot box, it cannot be stuffed.  On the other hand, the lack of privacy means that voters are open to bribery and intimidation; an employer can easily demand, for example, that his employees vote as required, and a crook can easily offer to pay a voter if he votes a certain way.

How different is this scene from the judicial campaign fundraisers that Justice O'Connor decries?  Fortunately, the solution need not be too different either.

Justice_is_blind_2 The secret ballot is an innovation of Australian democracy, imported to America later in the nineteenth century, in response to problems illustrated in Bingham's painting and, more recently, in scenes from Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York.   

Might the secret donation booth, imagined initially for federal elections, offer a path away from state judicial elections that have become as blind to money as...a character in a Scorsese film?

April 15, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Full transparency

Proving Ian's point a week later (from the Washington Post on 2/14/8):

The National Association of Home Builders, one of the top 10 corporate donors to politicians, has stopped contributing to congressional candidates after it failed to get what it wanted in recent anti-recession legislation."

The full story is here.

February 15, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Who’s Against Transparency in Government?

Ian Ayres guest blogs at The New York Times :

Transparency in government has a glorious tradition. Justice Louis Brandeis long ago said, “publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” But there exists in our government a central mechanism of democracy that stands against this cult of disclosure — the voting booth. Ballot secrecy was adopted toward the end of the nineteenth century to deter political corruption. Before the secret ballot, people could buy your vote and hold you to your bargain by watching you place that vote. Voting booth privacy disrupted the economics of vote buying, making it much more difficult for candidates to buy votes because, at the end of the day, they could never be sure who had voted for them....

Adam Liptak recently reported on another study showing that the decisions of judges are biased in favor of their contributors:

In nearly half of the [Louisiana Supreme Court cases reviewed], over a 14-year period [that] ended in 2006, a litigant or lawyer had contributed to at least one justice, sometimes recently and sometimes long before. On average, justices voted in favor of their contributors 65 percent of the time, and two of the justices did so 80 percent of the time.

But instead of stepping away from the democratic advantages of judicial elections, it would be possible to mandate that contributions to judicial candidates be given anonymously — through something like a donation booth or a blind trust.

Read the full post here.

February 08, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Do Not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Today the Supreme Court announced its decision, by a 5-4 vote along the court's new and increasingly familiar left-right cleavage, to effectively re-open corporate and union coffers to unlimited pre-election advertising.  The cycle of reform and retrenchment in campaign finance regulation, a constant over the past century, is swung round once again to equate money with speech.  Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres anticipate the result today in Slate:

Even though the latest Gallup poll shows John McCain to be the favorite of 18 percent of Republicans, compared to 7 percent for Romney, McCain is on the ropes because he isn't raising enough money to keep up. The betting markets say that Romney is twice as likely to win the nomination. John Edwards' standing is also threatened by his relatively low fund-raising totals; he came up with only $14 million in the first quarter compared to Hillary Clinton's record-breaking $25 million. If the Federal Election Commission reports another disappointing performance at the end of this month, the media might declare Edwards a "second tier" candidate and deprive him of a fair chance to plead his case in Iowa by downgrading his press coverage.

It's not surprising that McCain and Edwards are having a particularly tough time raising money from big givers. McCain's advocacy of campaign reform has never been a favorite among top donors, and Edwards' sharp turn to the left isn't a big crowd-pleaser, either­, at least when the crowd consists of the small group of Americans who can deliver $2,300 apiece from a bunch a friends or business associates. Our present money primary doesn't even pretend to be consistent with the one person-one vote principles that govern our democracy­ and in the disconnect between poll numbers and contribution levels, we are beginning to see the distorting consequences. With big primaries pushed into February, candidates need money now to compete effectively. The current setup is a standing invitation for big givers to determine the choices that ordinary voters will be allowed to confront at the polls.


June 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

How to Revive Campaign Finance Reform

Mark Schmitt writes at DemocracyJournal.org about how campaign finance reform has run into the ditch, and about how it can heaved out, by the many, many hands of a small donor democracy.  Mark's historical analysis of the reform movement is really interesting; more important, his six prescriptions are on the mark. 

Encourage the healthier developments in politics, don't fight them:  The reformers' recent battle over whether and how to extend the campaign finance laws to Internet-based political activity was harmful to the cause.  On balance, the demonstrated growth of small donor democracy over the Internet, and its potential, outweighs the demonstrated and potential harm of circumvention of campaign finance restrictions through Internet-based political advertising.

Political organization is good:  The reformers' drive since 2004 against the so-called 527 organizations likewise alienated erstwhile allies, this time in the nonprofit sector.  In a nation of "joiners", fighting against the right of political association is not a winning strategy.

Don't overtax the "corruption" rationale:  The criminalization of politics is a vicious cycle that serves democracy ill.  More important to fighting corruption, and more uplifting to our politics, is to find ways to fund more challengers.  Unopposed elections engender more venality than any deficiency of ethics and election law.

Accept that there is a place for private money in politics:  This is one of the important -- and few -- ways in which political involvement can extend beyond the vote for most people. High-matching public funding systems multiply the value of a matching contribution, helping to offset the unequal distribution of wealth.

Don't dismiss the libertarian arguments:  It's not enough to say "money isn't speech."  Find a way to generate more speech, not less.  Libertarians, by the way, are wrong to say disclosure alone is enough -- time, attention and the resources to sort through disclosed information are scarce.  Most people don't know who is their Congressman, much less her backers.

Expand, don't restrict:  The industry that is political campaigning is one of our smaller ones.  How much money is enough to spend on selecting our leaders?  If your goal is better government, it makes no sense to rule out the possibility that we should be spending more.

April 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Patriot Dollars & Poverty

From the New York Daily News today:

Next month, the Mayor's Commission on Economic Opportunity will release a strategy to reduce poverty in New York City. This is the first in an occasional series of outside-the-box recommendations to the group.

One of the best ways to fight poverty is to give politicians a direct monetary incentive to pay attention to the interests of ordinary New Yorkers.... 

August 14, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

After Randall v. Sorrell

Duke Law Professor Walter Dellinger, a former acting Solicitor General, writes in writes in Slate that the Supreme Court's decisions this term on election law suggest reformers should be looking away from expenditure limits.

Give every registered voter a voucher for a few hundred dollars (or a few thousand—this would still be a bargain) to be used for whatever state, local, or federal candidate the citizen wished to support. She would send in her voucher to her favorite campaign, which would submit it to the U.S. Treasury for payment. There would be no limits on private spending, but its influence would be greatly diminished by the flood of everyone's money.

Bill Corbett

July 07, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Who's afraid of the dark?

Find out here.

May 08, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

How Secret Political Donations Can End the Secret Deals

The Financial Times today published a comment by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, Secret political donations can end the secret deals.  It begins

Tony Blair of the UK is following Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Germany's Helmut Kohl in the long line of world leaders to become embroiled in campaign finance issues.  There will be many more scandals in the future unless reformers do some fresh thinking.

That fresh thinking starts with an analogy to the ballot box, which a little more than a century ago was as transparently a marketplace as is contemporary political campaign finance.  Think about it this way: If campaign contributions were secret, the Coushattas could have conned Jack Abramoff.  That would be a good thing.

Bill Corbett


April 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Next »

Books & Video on Better Democracy

  • Voting with Dollars: Reforming Reform
  • Votes for Sale - A PBS Report
  • The Assault on Reason (excerpt)
  • Deliberation Day: Alternative Futures
  • About Citsov: Who We Are

Articles on Small Donor Democracy

  • Fixing the System Obama Broke
  • Barney Frank on Voting With Dollars
  • McCain-Feingold helped doom the current model of public financing for campaigns. Fixing it will take some imagination
  • Patriot Dollars Put Money Where the Votes Are; Give Everyone $50 to Spend on the Candidates of Their Choice
  • Campaign Reform's Worst Enemy

Writings on Anonymity, Liberty & Equality

  • The Secret Refund Booth
  • Where Money is No Object
  • Who's Against Transparency in Government?
  • The County Election
  • Campaign Finance Disclosure: Keeping Up With the Joneses
  • Anonymously Yours
  • A Real Solution: Make Donors Anonymous
  • CEO Pay: Why the Blind See Better

Small Donor & Deliberative Democracy & other sites

  • AmericaSpeaks
  • CitizenSovereignty.org
  • DeliberativeDemocracy.net
  • Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role
  • DemocracySpace.org
  • ElectionLawBlog
  • Everyday Democracy (formerly Study Circles)
  • Harwood Institute
  • International Association for Public Participation
  • Just $6
  • National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
  • National Issues Forums
  • P2 Software and Technology
  • PBS By the People Programs
  • Public Campaign
  • Purple States TV
  • Smart Talk for Growing Communities: Meeting the Challenges of Growth and Development
  • Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy
  • Wikipedia on Deliberative Democracy

Categories

  • Campaign Finance
  • Deliberative Democracy
  • General
  • Noteworthy Posts
Subscribe to this blog's feed