One of the things that is becoming clear as Gil and I debate — and I think it showed up in the Ethics Commission workshop — is the difference in how the professionals in the field see behavior and the way observers — even knowledgeable observers like Gil — see behavior.

John Kern

For example, Gil says that contribution limits have defused the influence of wealthy individuals:

But, influence has been defused. Say what you will, the fact is a wealthy individual has to get a lot of her friends to contribute money under a contribution limit system thereby limiting one’s ability to affect politics by herself.

The reality is, it is the exact opposite. More influence is gained by raising money than simply writing a check. Anybody can write a check. Not everybody can get a roomful of people together to donate money for a candidate. That takes real influence.

But the whole issue really boils down to a drive toward public financing. Gil said:

Personally, I think updating the contribution limits and disclosure requirements only solves part of the problem — that candidates are spending too much time fundraising and as such rely more on parties and independent expenditures. Complete reform has to include a voluntary and competitive public finance system that will give candidates and the people the choice between privately funded candidates and publicly funded candidates.

I am against public financing because I simply do not want my tax money supporting candidates with whom I disagree.

More importantly, I think the whole premise is fatally flawed. Reformers (yeah, it is such a nice word) keep trying to make people not act like people. The fact is, as long as government takes actions to make people do things and regulate people — people are going to try to control government. It’s called Democracy. There is no system devised by the mind of man that a sharp 19-year-old cannot figure a way around. I remember in 1974 when Prop 9 — the Political Reform Act — passed with the promise to clean up government. Jerry Brown, then secretary of state, said this would limit lobbyists to no more than a “hamburger and a coke” in terms of what they could buy legislators. Anyone think government is pure and clean since the passage of Prop 9? I didn’t think so.

Keep the system simple. Let people contribute what they want to whomever they want. Disclose everything and let people decide.

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.