Why we need a convention to fix campaign finance

Because money is the grip of special interest, and the public interest should come first.

Because a choice between the same two parties isn't a choice.

Campaign Finance

As we discussed in our proposal for electoral reform, the current method of voting, in which we vote for a single candidate of our choice, has long encouraged voters to vote for one of the two most likely candidates to win, rather than "throw their vote away" on an unlikely candidate. Of course, in almost every case, this means voting for a Republican or a Democrat.

In a sense, the parties enjoy an unspoken and unchallenged power sharing agreement. Although they rival each other, they are virtually guaranteed to win about half the time. In this way, third parties are their common enemy. By using campaigns to re-enact the same tired old debates instead of challenging each other on the most important issues of today, where they are both vulnerable, they ensure that they don't damage each other enough to make room for a third contender.

At the same time, political campaigns have evolved into huge, sophisticated operations, unrecognizable from the days when they consisted of a few fliers and a debate or two before the election. TV ads and paid staffers have become virtual prerequisites for a campaign to be taken seriously, and these of course have significant costs, which must be paid from contributors. This, of course, is a virtual invitation for corruption.

For many contributors, that's the point. It's not about extending the reach of the debate or raising its level, and it's not even about supporting the candidate who embodies their principles and ideals. By funding a political campaign, they expect to have the victor's support for their special interests. In fact, many companies actually make a policy of contributing to both campaigns, so that no matter who the victor is, he's in their pocket. In that sense, having only two viable parties is in the best interests of donors seeking special influence as well.

Ironically, it's not as though expensive media-centric campaigns have elevated the level of public debate. Most would say they've done the opposite, trading once thoughtful disagreements on the issues for sound-byte attack ads.

As deep seeded as the problem is, the solutions are obvious. First, as described elsewhere we need electoral reform to remove the artificial disadvantages facing third party candidates. More candidates means more places to have to spread money around.

The second part of the solution is even more obvious: we must stop the deluge of contributions for candidates for political office.

We propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting any campaign for elected official from spending or raising more than the candidate's own actual expenses in the physical act of campaigning (going door to door, and having debates, but not running TV commercials). This would level the playing field for all candidates and return the debate to the issues.