Campaign Finance, PACs and the Paradox for Candidates



In last night’s Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate, the moderator pushed Charlie Baker to denounce an ad run by the Commonwealth Future Political Action Committee. The television spot criticizes Martha Coakley for defending the Commonwealth in a law suit against the Department of Children and Families. 

Baker did not denounce it. I’ll leave it others to criticize or endorse his position (Erin O’Brien scored the exchange as a win for Coakley), I would argue that Baker should not have to be in this position in the first place. It would be better if he did not have to answer for the behavior of a group unaffiliated with his campaign. 

Since the Citizens United decision in 2010, there's been plenty of hand wringing on the topic of campaign finance. Critics think there’s too much money in politics, a chorus that has only gotten louder (For example: Norm Ornstein on “how dangerous unregulated campaigns can be” for judicial politics). But this outrage runs against a maxim of politics: no matter what the rules are, the money will make its way in.

Instead of pushing for reform that tightens the campaign finance system – with more limits on individual contributions or reporting requirements that require PACs to disclose their donors—we should go in the opposite direction. Remove campaign finance limits and give candidates control.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is “speech” and is protected by the first amendment. Acknowledging this reality, a better goal for campaign finance policy is to assign responsibility where it should lie, with the candidates that benefit from the money. The current system puts the responsibility on regulators and bureaucrats to maintain an even playing field. I would rather let the voters decide. 

If PACs were able to give directly to candidates, there would be less shadowy groups running around behind the campaigns' back. And it would be better for campaigns; they have strategies, and they understand public opinion. They wouldn't put out such a deplorable ad if it had the candidate's face attached. 

This policy would not get rid of negative campaigning (nor should it, negativity can be good for politics, see here). Nor would this necessarily lead to more polarization (see Bert Johnson on how individual contributions aid extremists, not large access-oriented money)

The current system is paradoxically the worst of both worlds. There’s plenty of money being spent (both the Obama and Romney campaigns were billion dollar operations in 2012*), but there’s little accountability. At least bring this activity into the light so the voters can evaluate candidates and judge for themselves.

(*Also, think about what you're seeing on television right now. The airwaves are already saturated with political ads; do you even notice them? Do you think more spending would even make a difference?)



Popular posts from this blog

Turnout for What?: An altogether different concern with field experiments

Image
To the degree that Political Science Twitter can blow up, it blew up this week with the controversy over a field experiment run by professors at Stanford and Dartmouth in Montana (For the latest in the debate, see John Patty ; for overview, Derek Willis in NYT ). I don’t have anything to add to the ethics in field experiments discussion, although I am sympathetic to the accused profs. (If you would like a totally ethical look at how information increases participation in races like these, see my MPSA paper from last year!) My concern with this episode is that it illustrates a problem with the literature on turnout studies. They’ve gotten too good. One only needs to look around at the mail parties send to voters to see that voter shaming ( like in Alaska ), and possibly intimidation, is alive and well. These are techniques that were first tested by field experiments. (Look, it even happened to me in 2012) The combination of these techniques and the robust field offi
Read more

2022 Midterm Projection: Fundamentally Republican

Image
I think this is going to be an ugly election cycle for the Democrats. We can expect losses for the president's party in Congress in their first midterm election, and Joe Biden has not done anything to change my expectation. This is compounded by the fact that the economy seems to be the most pressing concern for voters, and inflation is a very difficult issue for policymakers to make go away or minimize. Since inflation is effectively making money less valuable, people that have a lot of money hate it , and even though unemployment is at a record low right, and many people in lower tax brackets have money in their pockets, it doesn't seem to go as far when you have to pay large bills for gas, heating your home or buying groceries.  So I believe we'll see the US House of Representatives swing to Republicans, probably with about 15-20 Democratic seat losses. Oddly, this is not actually that high of a number (Trump's party lost 41 in his only midterm, Obama lost 63 in his
Read more

10 Tips for Going on the Political Science Job Market

Image
It’s August, and academics are procrastinating so I’ve seen lots of advice on the job market. A lot of this advice seems good, but it usually comes from tenured professors who last went on the market before the advent of Twitter. So here are ten quick thoughts on my two recent trips to the academic job market: My qualifications for dispensing advice include spending many hours in the belly of the beast. Long term planning. One of the most sobering pieces of advice I got on the market came from Mike Horowitz at Penn, who emphasized to a group of us: “The market is a multi-year process.” This turned out to be the case for me, and the majority of people I have seen go through the market. At Penn we had 5 years of guaranteed funding, so planning for the market should begin in earnest in the second half of the fourth year. Once you lose that guaranteed funding, you’ll need to spend time on finding contingent employment, and anytime that is spent not on research you will not get
Read more