Except for the fact that actually implementing this idea through the use of ATMs would be needlessly complicated, I've been a fan of the "patriot dollars" proposal from Bruce Ackerman for some time now. It's a variant on your standard public financing of campaigns, where each citizen would be given a campaign donation voucher to award to the candidate (or candidates) of his or her choosing.
« The New Scene | Main | No New Thing Under the Sun »
Patriot Dollars
27 Jun 2007 07:41 am
Comments (11)
I've been thinking about it. As long as there was some way to prevent kickback or patriot money laundering schemes. How do you prevent people selling their vouchers or whatever for $10? Would that matter? I can see why it's popular with pundits, it would amount to a 3 billion dollar subsidy of the political media and consulting industry. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea. It would also create a real money election before the actual election, dragging the whole stupid mess out even longer.
I would have given this a break but when I read the proposal was for $25 it died right there for me. What American does not have a spare $25 for a cause they really care about? This is kiddie stuff. If we all wanted to give the candidate of our choice $25 we would. I never have and I am damn proud of it. So what is the logic of the Federal government taking $40 from me, spending $15 on administration and kick backs, to give me $25 *back* which I don't really want to give to any of the candidates at all? Someone explain the logic to me. Even if I did, why not just encourage me to give it to someone? Why mandate it inefficiently?
Bloomberg can spend his own money any way he likes. Rich families usually produce sons that spend money, often by interfering in politics they do not really understand. If he wants to throw his money away I am happy for him to do so. More honest than buying the New York Times.
As if taxpayers don't subsidize the political class enough...
This idea seems absolutely rife for nonsense. Rush Limbaugh has ~13 million listeners. Roughly half the time, they'll be running an incumbent for president who won't need their money during the primary. What is to stop him from convincing them to dump a quarter billion dollars in the coffers of Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich, etc?
With the current system, it would never happen, because people are inherently lazy and greedy.
Yes, yes, yes! This idea is badly needed. Even if you disagree with the High Court's decision striking down a key plank of BCRA yesterday (I think the conservative majority was right, as does the ACLU), you have to admit that BCRA just was not adequately serving its main intended purpose of rendering more egalitarian the election-season political discourse. The Internet has been doing that; and expanding speech in a democratic way is far preferable to trying to supposedly preventing it by passing loophole-filled but still-censorious laws.
I dunno. It seems like a second, earlier election to determine who gets the biggest megaphone. Why do we believe this will lead to better election results? Isn't a second, monetary "election" a redundant way of gauging the will of the people?
I think instant-runoff voting and public financing of elections are examples of reforms that will actually improve the electoral process. I don't see why this does. (More precisely, I don't see why it's preferable to basic "everybody gets 10 million dollars"-style public financing)
On the other hand, if "political ads are free speech" according to SCOTUS, this might be the only legal way to level the playing field, in which case I am all for it.
The problem with patriot dollars over plain old public financing with a signature or small-dollar fundraising threshold is that it compounds the effect of celebrity.
For example, Clinton and McCain start their patriot dollar pledge campaigns early, while they are the prohibitive frontrunners. This means that the Huckabees and Richardsons still have no way to break out.
I've never seen the advantage of patriot dollars over a Maine/Arizona style system.
There will be a large number of people who would take their "Patriot Dollars" and wonder how they can turn them into real dollars. There would have to be some kind of enforcement mechanism to make sure people can't turn in a big pile of them that they bought for $10 apiece. Any time anyone wants to modify that mechanism, their efforts will be supported and opposed in accordance with which party will end up with more Patriot Bucks afterward, just as voter registration laws are decided now.
As another unintended consequence, the election seasion will simply be pushed back; instead of spending campaign contributions getting people to vote in November 2008, they'll spend them getting people to spend liberty dollars in May 2007, since presumably there will be some period during which candidates know they want to run for president but can't collect Patriot Dollar contributions yet. Unless of course, we have the option to donate to John Edwards' 2016 presidential campaign today.
As with a lot of ideas, it sounds pretty and elegant on paper, but I don't think any of us will like what it turns into on the other end of the sausage factory.
Noah's point above at 12:14 is good, although it doesn't have to be an either-or decision.
Comments closed July 11, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's not a bad idea, but if they do implement it I really hope they change the name to something less sanctimonious.
(I know, right, who am I kidding?)
Posted by schwa | June 27, 2007 7:59 AM