James Carville and Paul Begalla Are Making Sense (Yes You Read Right)

You read it right, I find myself in agreement with the two top Democratic strategists for the first time in memory. Captain Ed does not. So, lets go ahead and talk about that.

First thing is that Begalla and Carville makse the case for fundamental reform:

There’s a vast need for bolder reform, and the Abramoff scandals provide the opportunity of a lifetime. Voters aren’t going to be fooled by procedural tinkering. What’s needed is total root-to-branch reform. As any average person will tell you, the heart of the problem is that elected officials take money from interested parties. Whether it’s technically legal or not, accepting money as a public servant is a form of bribery, and it serves to fundamentally corrupt democracy. We don’t let cops, customs agents, or federal judges take money from the people they’re serving. We should hold elected officials to the same standards. They should be out of the fundraising business altogether.

Its a promising premise. Their solutions are sound, as well. Begalla and Carville write:

First, we raise congressional pay big time. Pay ‘em what we pay the president: $400,000. That’s a huge increase from the $162,000 congressmen and senators currently make. Paul, especially, has been a critic of congressional pay increases. But he is willing to more than double politicians’ pay in order to get some of the corrupt campaign money out of the system. You see, the pay raise comes with a catch. In return, we get a simple piece of legislation that says members of Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

Captain Ed Shoots Back:

It’s always amusing when Democrats routinely castigate people who make six figures as the “rich”, but then claim that politicians making $162K somehow have a claim of poverty. That salary doesn’t include per diems, nor does it include staffers, which in many cases include family members to max out the benefits for holding electoral office. Nor does it take into account that some of these people have their own businesses back home, to which they tend when not in session. Carville and Begala make it sound as if their abject poverty causes corruption, a ludicrous notion, and one that would cost taxpayers $127,330,000 per year to fix.

Well, as a former State Coordinator for Alan Keyes, I called for increasing Congressional pay to $500,000 (with performance incentives for balancing the budget). As I wrote a little more than two weeks ago:

While $162,100 may be a great salary for most of us, it’s a job many people can’t afford to take, particularly with Congress’ ethical restrictions on outside income. Consider a successful Lawyer or an Executive whose bringing home hundreds of thousands a year. In running for Congress, they must stop earning money for the time they’re running they’re campaign, and once elected they’ll have their income cut while having to maintain a 2nd residence (be that an apartment or a home in the DC area.)

You want better Congressman, up the pay to Half a Million per year. In doing so, you’ll get more people who are able to run AND you’ll also end one source of special interest corruption. Many members of Congress after they retire become lobbyists. As lobbyists, they earn more than they could ever hope to as Congressmen. Of course, they’ve got to be friendly to industry while in office, if they want a shot at the job. By raising Congressional Salary, K Street will become less attractive.

Just as a team paying a Pitcher $7 million a year if that’s what the market calls for, for a starting pitcher of that player’s calliber. You’re paying what it takes to attract quality candidates.

Begala and Carville write further:

No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. Period.
Challengers, on the other hand, would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits, just as the free-market conservatives have always wanted. But here is the catch: Within 24 hours of receiving a contribution, the challenger would have to report it electronically to the Federal Election Commission, which would post it for the public to see. …

The day after [disclosure], the U.S. Treasury would credit the incumbent’s campaign account with a comparable sum—say 80 percent of the contribution to the challenger to take into account the cost of all the canapés and Chardonnay the challenger had to buy to raise his funds as well as the incumbent’s advantage. …

What if the incumbent wants to spend her own money? After all, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution does not allow restrictions on how much money a candidate—challenger or incumbent—can spend. No problem. Uncle Sam would write the challenger a check for an equivalent amount.

Captain Ed objects:

Why not just ban private donations altogether and simply provide public financing for all elections? I don’t believe that’s compatible with freedom of speech, but at least it’s coherent.

Au Contraire. This actually makes perfect sense, with one proviso, the Candidate be given a check equal to 80% of what his strongest challenger raised. If you start doing this and including third parties, you’re unleveling the playing field.

The way I look at it, is that Special Interest money costs American taxpayers. How many Billions get spent on projects where people have bought influence through lobbyists? If we publicly finance the incumbents, we mitigate the effect of influence peddlers to Rookie Congressmen who have a lot less influence to use. And when they gain some influence after three or four terms, by then they’ll be incumbents themselves.

I’d say these guys have come up with a genuine idea. Wow! I didn’t think it was possible for Democrats to do that. Hats off to you, boys. Of course, like most campaign finance proposals, it will die of neglect if someone doesn’t pick it up and carry it. It’s going to be hard to get passed, because incumbents will hate it.

The Captain goes on to say:

I agree that we need to reform political processes that protect incumbents, but the problem with incumbency comes from apportionment processes that have become seriously derailed, not with campaign financing.

The Captain’s right that reapportionment process is a problem, but denying that money plays a role is silly. Look at 90% of political races. They abide by the modern Golden Rule. “He who has the Gold Rules.”

Linked to Conservative Cat