I'm thrilled to be here. I've attended many of these conferences and it's my first chance
to get to speak. I wear many hats. I'm a recovering attorney and I hope that you won't hold that
against me. I earn my living as a political consultant and thus help elect some of our
elected officials and there's no way you can hold that against me more than I do myself.
My company is based in Gainesville, Florida and I teach part-time at the University of
of Florida, the Home of Communism in North Central Florida.
I'm not the only non-communist in my department,
but I am the only one who was a Ron Paul delegate
to the convention last fall and who voted for Ron Paul
in the primary a month or so ago.
And when I tell colleagues this, they know I'm a Republican,
I've been patted down for horns and whatever.
I can only admit to being a Republican,
actually something far worse than a Republican, I guess, in their eyes, but when I tell them
that I voted for Ron Paul, they look at me bug-eyed and say, no, you didn't, and I go,
yeah, yeah, I did, and then I try to explain to them why, and you know, it's like, whatever.
Anyway, I am pleased to tell you that it's not the Poli Sci Department, it's the English
Department that hosts the International Marxist Conference, and it will be next weekend. If
If you're bored, go to Google and do it and look at the theme and some of the post-modern
transformative talks that they'll be giving and I guarantee you'll hop a flight to Gainesville
to come down for 15th through the 17th of March.
In my spare time, I'm finishing a dissertation on the topic of campaign finance reform, which
is what I'm going to be criticizing ruthlessly today.
By way of background, for most of our lives, most of us have heard about the need for campaign
and Finance Reform and right after every reform suddenly we have to do another one.
Well why is this?
What most people don't know is that we've been reforming campaign finance for over a
hundred years now and some of the goals from the beginning were to keep out money from
the wealthy, from the unions and from the corporations and of course to end corruption.
My research question is, what went wrong?
And the preliminary, I guess, answer is, other than everything, not much.
Well while it won't come as a surprise to anybody here, out in the rest of the world,
it's a complete shocker that the failure of campaign finance reform is the fault of incumbents,
reformers, experts, government, in short, the reforms themselves.
And the culprits are the very sponsors of reform.
So we not only have a government-induced crisis that's made worse with every reform, but it
ends up that they've gotten exactly backwards for over a hundred years. Based on the diagnosis
that money is the corrupting influence in politics, Congress, the courts and reformers
have prescribed various remedies. My basic argument is that all of these remedies have
failed based upon a fundamental misdiagnosis of the underlying problem. Now I think that
The corrupting influence in politics is power, not money, but that's another story for
another day.
The foundations of our modern campaign finance system are the twin pillars of, on one hand,
the disclosure laws, the who gave it, who got it, lists that they're published of contributions
and expenditures to campaigns, and on the other hand, the regulation of sources and
amounts.
I think most of us know that in a federal campaign, an individual can only give $2,500
have different limits.
But while the disclosure laws are sort of good in theory as they add some transparency to
a very complicated and confusing process, the legal and regulatory system built around
them has rendered the disclosure laws negligible at best and undermine the transparency that
they're seeking.
In other words, they work across purposes with one another rather than complement one
another.
So rather than fulfilling the promise of the reformers to add transparency to the system
To create public trust in government, our campaign finance laws do almost exactly the
opposite. They foster secrecy and promote distrust. So after a hundred years of reform,
to end the corruption of money, there's now more money than ever in politics. And after
a hundred years of trying to make campaigns less negative, they're more negative. And
to top it off, our First Amendment free speech rights have been trampled in the name of reform
by incumbent politicians wanting to shut us up, specifically 30 and 60 days before elections.
And after 100 years of reform, we also seek to solve virtually the exact same problems
that we were trying to address in 1907 when the first Campaign Finance Reform Act was
passed by Congress.
I suggest that our reforms have made the problems worse due to the problem being misdiagnosed.
If the diagnosis were correct, the reforms would have worked.
My paper and dissertation explore these failures in detail but what I want to run through briefly
today are the premises, promises and unintended consequences of campaign finance reform.
Some of the premises of the reformers for reform were and are that there's too much
money in politics, though they never say how they know that or what the right amount is
or that when you add up everything that's spent over a two-year period of time, which
It's an election cycle that it averages out to be about $10 per person over the two-year
period of time, which might account for why voters are not real smart sometimes.
But anyway, apparently there's too much money in politics, corruption.
Money is this corrupting influence in politics.
They talk about the undue influence of special interests, whatever those are and whatever
undue influence is.
They talk about conflicts of interest which they define it in a very, very broad manner
such as if you have a boundary dispute with your neighbor or something and you're advancing
your own interest, that's a conflict of interest.
It's not very narrowly tailored like we would think an elected official not disclosing a
financial interest to these people, a conflict of interest, is anybody advocating on their
on their own behalf, which of course a lot of people call democracy.
Another promise of the reformers or premise is that there's inequality and secret money.
Some of the promises that the reformers have been making for over a century if we pass
the reforms is that there'll be no corruption, we'll have equality, we'll have a deliberative
democracy, whatever that is, we'll have a true democracy, there'll be trust in government,
we'll have an educated and enlightened electorate, we'll have clean elections, we'll have no
Here are some of the results after 100 years of reform.
The Tillman Act of 1907 banned all corporate money, yet every cycle corporations participate
in federal elections to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 banned union money in federal elections, yet every election
cycle, unions participate to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The publicity acts of the 1910s and 1920s, the post-Watergate reforms of the 1970s, McCain-Feingold,
which worked its way through in the 90s and was passed in 02, ostensibly sought to limit
the activity of wealthy fat cats.
And yet, every election cycle, wealthy fat cats participate to the tune of tens of millions
of dollars in our elections.
They created public funding of presidential campaigns, but it's now routinely rejected
and or abused.
Each cycle costs more than the last when they sought to get money entirely out of the process.
Each cycle seems more negative than the last.
Each cycle seems less transparent than the last, with the advent of 527s after McCain
Feingold.
All the money that used to go to political parties now went to these mysterious 527s
The empirical failures of 100 years of reform have been so profound and pervasive that I have bunched them into several distinct types of failure.
Enforcement, Fungibility, Transparency and Unattended Consequences.
In terms of the failure of enforcement, the Tillman Act of 1907 had literally no teeth
in it at all.
The Publicity Act had no teeth in it at all.
The original FEC, Federal Election Commission that passed in the early 70s, had no teeth.
It was then struck down by the Supreme Court and they brought it back and they made it
have teeth, but the politicians made it where there's six voting members of the FEC, three
of which have to be Democrats and three of which have to be Republicans.
So that sort of takes the teeth out of that.
In the old days, Senate reports were not kept.
Any reports that were filed were thrown away or you couldn't get a copy of them.
In a former life, I worked for the Republican Party of Florida, and in 1992, I got a lawsuit
from the Federal Election Commission that was investigating the 1988 George Bush primary
campaign.
I don't know how many lawyers are in here, but to file a lawsuit, you have to have jurisdiction
and venue and a proper case, and you have to not let the time lapse.
Funds. Anyway, I filed a motion to dismiss for waiting four years to pursue something,
and they wrote me back and said that they had waived that, which of course you can't
do. Anyway, fungibility. Basically, money is fungible. So when they ban it in one place,
it goes somewhere else. In the original Tillman Act, they said you could only have one committee
per county. So if you're in a congressional district, say in North Florida, where you
15 counties, you set up 15 committees. Of course corporate money. Well before 527s and super PACs, corporate money had plenty of places to go. Independent expenditures, soft money, give money in the name of another. This is where the boss of the corporation gives $2,500 to each of 20 different employees who then make a contribution to whatever. You give money to the convention. The RNC and the DNC put on their conventions and their
are paid for by the taxpayer funds under the Presidential Campaign Financing Act, but also
they get corporate dollars and a lot of these big corporations give hundreds of thousands
if not millions to the convention.
They also give it to leadership committees, somebody who may be running for Speaker of
the House or President of the Senate or trying to get ready to run for President in a few
years.
One thing too, polling.
One of the things corporations do and unions do is do extensive polling for politicians
and the corporation pays for it, it's never disclosed, and then after 10 days, it's considered old information, so you can do a poll, wait 10 days, and then give it to somebody, you can also give money to a political party, transparency, the failures of transparency, let's be clear, they really don't want transparency, that's something that the reformers and the media, and I guess the do-gooders want, but the politicians don't, but there's been all kind of problems with transparency,
Transparency. For example, in the state of Florida where I am, everybody in Florida's
reports have to be filed before the election. If you're in Congress or Senate, you get to
file your final report after the election. The forms are difficult and essentially impenetrable.
They're supposed to be who gave it, who got it, but they're really not. Unintended consequences.
There's too many of those to really get into, but a good one is the Presidential Matching
Fund.
They set this up so that the taxpayers could pay for elections rather than have people
who are interested in elections paying for elections.
So they have this checkoff on your tax form that you probably see every year.
What you may not have noticed is that 10 or 15 years ago, they asked you yes or no, do
you want to give $1 to this fund?
Well, so many people were not giving that they had to raise it to three dollars and
now no is not an option on there.
So they're still having problems funding it.
In fact, if you consider that a poll, and I do a lot of polling in my business, polls
essentially you get a representative sample of the body that you're polling and then you
can make inferences from that.
Well, in terms of the 130 or 140 million Americans who file tax returns, that's kind of like
the map in Alice in Wonderland that was real size, and 90% of the American public that
files tax returns do not check off that box every year.
So the Presidential Trust Fund is pretty much depleted.
Another unintended consequence was the 527s, which sprang up right after McCain-Feingold,
And one of the reasons that happened was the reformers, knowing best, thought it was very
odd that the Republicans would support their nominees and the Democrats would support their
nominees and so they stopped money going to the political parties.
So that money is going to go somewhere, so it went to 527s.
The biggest unintended consequence is the super PACs, which came about merely because
the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, which says something to the effect of Congress
This Shall Make No Law, or something like that.
By the way, super PACs are funded by wealthy fat cats, unions and corporations.
To bring it all together, there's a passage from the infamous Citizens United case that's
priceless and says it all.
Campaign finance regulations impose unique and complex rules on 71 distinct entities
for 33 different types of political speech, for which the FEC has 568 pages of regulations,
1,278 pages of explanations and justifications for those 568 pages of regulations, and 1,771
advisory opinions.
All of this reminds me of an old southern saying, when you're up to your ass in alligators
it's a fine time to recall that your goal was to drain the swamp.
Thank you very much.