Madison, WI - With the 2006 elections behind us and campaign finance “reform” advocates
bemoaning the “tone” of recent statewide elections, I thought I would share
with you an excellent article on the issue of future campaign “regulation.”
Written by University of Wisconsin – Madison Professor John Coleman, it
touches on several issues that do not get equal time with advocates of the
campaign finance reform movement. How much is “too much” to spend on a
campaign? Who should be able to contribute and how much? When should we be
allowed to spend on a campaign? Should all campaigns be taxpayer financed?
As you know, the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association (WRA) gets very involved in
the political process every election cycle, but the “reform” movement would
like nothing better than to tell us what we can say, when we can say it and how
we can say it. Professor Coleman makes a compelling case for continued free
speech by organizations like the WRA.
By jOE mURRAY
Money and Campaigns: A Different View
By John Coleman
With the primary election over and the general election campaigns in full
gear, the gnashing of teeth and mashing of keyboards is in full force.
Critics are quick to point out the flaws of the system. Too much money is
spent, too much is contributed, too much is devoted to television ads.
Are these charges accurate?
Informing millions of potential voters in statewide races and thousands in
other races is expensive. Travel, staff, advertising, research, printing - all
these cost money. What if research shows, as it does, that more spending leads
to greater voter knowledge about the candidates? And what if this knowledge
benefit seems to be particularly true for people in “disadvantaged” groups or
who are less likely to follow politics closely? Be careful before assuming that
spending less would necessarily be better.
Fortunately, the state Elections Board this week did not require GOP
candidate for governor Mark Green to forfeit even more of his campaign funds.
But the board’s original decision, still in force, was distressing. The board
ignored its own precedent, the rules in place at the time of Green’s financial
transfer, and the opinion of its well-regarded legal counsel in ordering Green
to forfeit a share of his campaign funds. A better strategy would have been to
allow the funds to be spent, which would make for a more informative and
competitive race. And then let the voters decide how serious a problem Green’s
transfer was. When in doubt, why not trust the voters to make a judgment?
But isn’t it unfair that some candidates spend more than others? Not
necessarily. Rather than anything nefarious, candidates may raise more money
because they are better organized or they simply have more support in the
public.
Usually incumbents will spend more. That alone does not make the process
corrupt. Incumbents are often quite good at what they do. They do not, after
all, re-elect themselves. They are well-known; they know how to use the media;
they focus on issues and take positions that their constituents support; and
they know how to get things done for the district and for individual
constituents. When an incumbent lacks these ingredients, money will flow into
the challenger’s campaign more readily.
And although people love to hate them, there’s a reason televised campaign
ads are popular among candidates: They work. They get a message out
efficiently. They introduce voters to a candidate. Criticism of ads often seems
based on an elitist tendency to look down one’s very sophisticated nose and
sneer disapprovingly at the way other people learn about politics.
Will some ads be “negative?” Yes. But “negative” advertising may just mean
that Candidate A is commenting on the flaws in Candidate B’s record or that
Candidate B’s proposals would create a huge budget deficit. Would Candidate B
volunteer that information for us? Unlikely. Other negative advertising may
provide a policy contrast between the two candidates. The ads often signal to
voters that a race is important, which might encourage them to seek out other
information.
Of course, negative ads can be misleading and unpleasant - as can the very
sober debates between the candidates so often desired by critics. Even ads full
of positive messages can be misleading. Throw a rock and you are likely to hit
a candidate who is “leading the fight” on a pressing public problem, which
might mean that he did nothing more than show up for work one day and vote on a
bill. Listen carefully and the candidate might have 10 things that are her “top
priority” and the “first thing” she’ll work on when elected.
Still, doesn’t the money to fund ads come in part from “special interests?”
No doubt. But every one of us can be defined as being part of a number of
special interests based on our values, employment, personal characteristics,
faith, and any number of other factors. Would it truly be more democratic if
these interests, your interests, which certainly are subject to the power of
politics and government, were unable to have a voice or express speech by
supporting candidates in campaigns?
Obviously, no one favors trading public policy for campaign contributions.
Violations should be vigorously prosecuted. We should be similarly vigilant in
guarding against government officials engaging in equally shameful “pay to
play” schemes. Even the “special interests” themselves agree on these points,
as none want to be unfairly defeated in these ways.
But it is not conclusive evidence of a dirty, broken process that a policy
you disagree with, supported by groups you don’t like, happened to be enacted
into law. And if voters elect someone whose fundraising you deplore, that is
democracy in action and very much their right. Sometimes, in politics and life,
you just lose. Sometimes, humility suggests, the other side’s ideas may even be
better than yours.
Certainly, campaigns are not always pretty or honorable. Sometimes, reform is
the right thing to do. When it is, it should follow five guidelines. It should
preserve the knowledge and involvement benefits of campaign spending. It should
not be an elite vision for telling other citizens how they should learn about
politics. It should enlarge the public forum during campaigns, which means
expanding speech, participation, and competition and trusting voters to make
decisions. It should be based on systematic, not anecdotal, evidence. And it
should not promise results that it cannot realistically deliver.
This article is reprinted in full from the Monday, October 9, 2006 edition
of the “Wisconsin State Journal” with the permission of John Coleman.
Published: 11/30/2006
