Transparency versus money

The previous post argued that special interest money in politics works for the special interest. That can hurt the public interest. Those opinions are based on common sense. When a for-profit corporation acts, it is supposed to act in shareholder's best interests. Maximizing shareholder profit is the point of being a for-profit entity, regardless of what the public relations department might tell you.

Money - good, bad or neutral?

Given California's difficult situation and Californian's professed unhappiness with politics as usual, a reasonable question is whether the bad effects of money politics can be reduced. However, if you believe that the effect of money on politics is good or irrelevant, then the suggestions made here will not make sense. It all depends on your point of view. The view from the a new party perspective could be that money in politics is significantly more bad than good for the public interest and more good than bad for the special interest.

There is at least one low cost approach to reduce the power of special interest money in politics - more transparency. Obviously, that would face special interest opposition. Most state politicians, state bureaucrats, California political parties and at least some of the public would oppose it. Nonetheless, it is an option the courts probably would not overturn.

More transparency - sunlight disinfects

Increased transparency of how money and its lobbyists actually work would probably favor the public interest more than the special interest on most issues. Current law requires disclosure of donors, which is only some transparency that could be forced into politics. Doing more is possible. Lobbyists work with politicians in private and there is a good reason for that. Specifically, they do not want the public to know what they are saying, asking for or paying. That opinion is based on common sense. How many political outsiders have ever heard what went on in a meeting between a lobbyist asking for favors and a California politician? Probably very few.

Whose business is it - theirs or ours?

So, are special interest-politician meetings public or private business? When a lobbyist talks to a politician or government bureaucrat, it is mostly or exclusively public business. The typical lobbyist backed by for-profit special interest money wants something from the government or taxpayers, usually lower taxes, less regulation and/or less competition. Since taxpayers elect politicians to represent them, their business is public business, not private business with special interests or their lobbyists.

A nasty light, from their point of view: California politician or bureaucrat meetings and other communications with special interests or their lobbyists should be required to be made public. All meetings should be recorded and available to the public and the press. Once the public gets to see what really goes on, it is highly likely that what politicians or bureaucrats deliver will be much less biased in favor of the special interest. Sunlight disinfects rot.

Publicizing the business between politicians or bureaucrats and the envoys of special interest money isn't the only form of enhanced transparency that could be applied. Naming the entities and the dollar amounts attached to key pieces of legislation would further clarify the connection between politicians and money. A lot of things could be done.

Chasing special interest business out of the dark and into the light goes straight to the heart of politics as usual. Complaints from status quo defenders, e.g., secrecy is needed to protect sensitive information, could be reasonably dealt with. Not all information a lobbyist conveys is confidential or trade secret. The bulk of those communications are marketing or "rationale" as to why the special interest should be allowed to feed more voraciously from the public trough or get some other benefit. Those arguments are what the public needs to see and hear.

A soft, deadly threat

Special interest marketing pleas are no doubt sometimes, maybe usually, accompanied by very subtle promises/threats of "campaign contributions" to the incumbent or the challenger in the next election cycle depending on what the politician will or will not do. That is how money exerts its pressure, i.e., it is the politician's main incentive to act or fail to act. Forcing more transparency into politics would be an effective public interest counter threat.

Money in politics

In California, like most everywhere else, a candidate usually can't get elected without money. Organizations like Follow the Money estimate that over $204 million has been contributed in the current election cycle, but that is based on incomplete information from candidates who ran in the June primary. By the time the elections in November 2010 are over, total contributions in California could be $450 million or more.

What does all that money buy? According to lobbyists, politicians, and the Democratic and Republican political parties, it buys either nothing or, at most, access to politicians so that special interests and their lobbyists can explain what it is they want. Everyone involved argues that campaign contributions do not buy votes. So, is that believable or not?

Is the money really just an innocent thing with no influence on policy, law or the public interest? Is that argument credible or not? Lobbyists and special interests can always talk to a politician without making a campaign contribution, assuming there is something important to talk about. Do special interests really pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get nothing more than a simple innocent meeting with a politician?

Pick up the phone and make 

an appointment, not a contribution

If nothing else, common sense says that campaign contributions buy votes and influence, regardless of how strenuously the involved parties deny it. If the money didn't work, it wouldn't be contributed. That is not rocket science. It is reality. However, according to the U.S. Supreme court, spending money on campaigns is protected free speech. With business as usual, nothing will change and money will continue to corrupt politics. That is another reality.

Believe it or not: Either you believe that scenario is mostly true or you don't. From the perspective of a political moderate grounded in reality, corruption of politics by special interest money is the reality. Who benefits more than needed? The special interest* paying the bills, of course. Who loses more than needed? Usually the public interest as argued in another post.

* Not all lobbyists and special interests are loaded with money and they cannot corrupt politics with cash. Many charities and social organizations have little or no money for politicians. They have to win their arguments mostly on the merits, which is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't the case for special interests with money - they influence their arguments with cash.

Why does it work out that way? Because that is how incentives align in politics. Special interests contribute money with few downsides and a lot of political or economic upside. Politicians need money for election and reelection, which is usually their top priority. That makes harvesting campaign contributions a higher priority than service to the public. In a fight between a moneyed special interest and the public interest, the public interest tends to get short changed.

Can it be fixed?

Probably not completely. Spending money is constitutionally protected political speech. A subsequent post will discuss one option, more transparency, that may blunt some of the raw power that special interest money has on California politics.

Public interest vs. special interest

There is a difference between the public interest and a special interest. For economic issues, the difference usually amounts to which interest gets most of the benefits or advantages of policy or law. That may favor the public or special interest. For most social or religious issues, e.g., abortion, the difference generally amounts to which personal or religious belief interest 'wins'. Supporters argue their view helps the public. The opposition argues the opposite. Regardless, the outcome may help, hurt or do nothing to the public interest.

Where does the balance lie?

The interesting question is one of balance. How much net benefit or harm there is to the public interest compared to the special interest. It isn't always a matter of one side wins and the other loses. For some political policies, there is more benefit than hurt. Sometimes all sides are hurt more than helped. Sometimes its a wash.

Spinners step in: Unfortunately the balance is usually hard for the public to see. Political issues are usually complicated. A law affecting one area of the economy can affect things in related or unrelated areas. For contested policies, both sides generally spin as hard as they can to win their argument or benefit. Facts and truth are hard or impossible to get at. In political debates, truth is the usual first casualty. Despite the smoke and mirrors, when a special interest has money and lobbyists, the special interest tends to benefit at the expense of the public interest.

It is just entrepreneurial: Ignoring or downplaying the public interest is mostly capitalist. Politicians follow their political incentives, e.g., reelection, just like capitalists follow theirs in the economic arena. Unfortunately that is a big problem. If political incentives favor the special interest, that is what most politicians will favor most of the time, if not always.

Trying to get a win-win or equal balance would be an improvement when it could be done. Favoring the public interest over the special interest would be fine if a win-win or reasonable balance could not be found. At the least, approaching California's political problems and issues from that viewpoint would be different.

What kind of party?

What could a new or moderate California political party be like? It could, like other political parties, be built around political or economic ideology like fiscal conservatism or Keynesian economic theory. It could be based on usually trying to find compromises between what Republicans and Democrats want. It could be corrupted by special interest money or it could be relatively free from corruption. A political party could be a lot of things.

California Moderates

Existing political parties offer a vast range of political and economic ideology. Given that, why try to make up some more? The track record of hard core political ideology over pragmatism does not look so good at the moment. It makes sense to start from a relatively non-ideological but pragmatic point of view. A new party could look realistically at political problems and issues with as little distortion by ideology or special interest spin as possible.

From that vantage point, the a new party could find and advocate for the most cost-effective and efficient policy that has a chance of political success. In some cases a good solution to a social problem or issue might be considered conservative, liberal or a compromise between those two. Sometimes it might be none of those. That is one aspect of not being trapped by political ideology - it frees you to fairly consider actions that ideologues cannot conceive or accept, even if their point of view is 'wrong' or second best.

Nuts and bolts

Setting policy: One way for a new party to differ from Democrats and Republicans would be to allow its members or groups of members who want to formulate policies. For Democrats and Republicans, influencing policy is largely open only to life-long activists and major money donors. For a new open party, policies would be voted on by all members before it becomes official party policy. Opposing or differing policy proposals by members would be available online so that people would have a chance to consider the various policy arguments, including a chance to comment on proposals.

Party policies could be voted on under a schedule that members want, e.g., once a year, every two years, every four years or whenever made sense. Members could vote on all, some or no party policies as they wish.

Vote by internet: The Independent Party of Oregon has just finished a primary vote by internet. A new California party could do the same thing for internal policy votes and for primaries and general elections. That would free the party to hold primary elections at any time that its members want, like a day or two before primaries or caucuses in New Hampshire or Iowa. That might even dilute the undue political influence that those states have on national politics.

Membership: People would need to sign up and when asked, sign an affidavit of registration. Registering a new party in California requires affidavits from a number of people equal to or greater than 1% of  the people who voted in the last general election (about 90,000). A new party can register by petition, but that requires ten times the number of signatures (about 900,000). The needed number of signatures make the affidavit process difficult but possible. The petition route is probably impossible without several million dollars, which is not available. Given the needed numbers, it probably take at least a year or two, to get the needed number of people willing to qualify a new party.

A different kind of politics

Feeling queasy about the California ship of state? Lost some faith in the Democratic and Republican parties? Maybe there is a reason. Arguably, the boat is on the rocks. The parties certainly seem to be distracted by endless mortal combat. And, they are controlled by their own political interests and special interests with their money.

The question is whether or not there is enough discontent among California voters to want to do something about politics as usual. But, do what? Something that comes to mind is forming a moderate political party. That party could differ from politics as usual by serving the public interest first and special interests, which include party interests, second. That would be different. It could be more transparent and more open to political participation by its members. It could differ by focusing more on facts, reality and common sense than a focus on political ideology, polarization and spin.

A reasonable guess is that a lot of people are not happy with politics. That opinion is based on the fact that the number of people registered as independent voters has been increasing for over 20 years (17.7% in 2004 for California; 40% nationwide in 2010). Many Californians that care about politics, maybe most, are unhappy with the political status quo. Despite that, not much seems to be in the works to fix it. 

Whining doesn't work

This blog isn't here to voice complaints about what Democrats or Republicans have done badly or failed to do. It is here to foster change and political competition. At this point, either people are happy with the existing political parties and business as usual in California or they are not. Others can voice the complaints. I want to test the temperature of the discontent by seeing if there is a real chance to build a new party. If it is hot enough, then maybe a viable challenge is possible.

Low traction parties and platforms

It is fair to say that, despite the discontent, third parties and groups like the Libertarians, Greens, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, Christian Zionists and all the rest, do not have much popular appeal. So what is left to try? What is left is this. A party that is focused on finding 'unspun truth' (which will be clearly and simply defined a later post), intelligent, common sense problem solving and true dedication to public service. That is in comparison to the present major and minor political parties, which build complex temples of political ideology to worship and defend in the name of public service.

The question is whether forming a new California moderate party under current circumstances has a chance to succeed. Given the discontent, maybe it does. Subsequent posts will be directed to facilitating the formation of a new political party or describing ways in which a new party could be different from what we have now. Anyone interested can contact me by leaving a comment with contact information.