Subject: Campaign Finance
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
CC: orglabor@cog.kent.edu
On the list that I monitor, I put forth several questions for consideration having to do with the aging crisis, globalization and whether A+B is applicable in either todays global market or tomorrows employee-owned marketplace. These questions led to the central question, which is equally applicable to the enactment of either social credit or capital homesteading: is any expansion of ownership possible without campaign finance reform in the United States? Put another way, will the established elites in business and labor block any and all change to the status quo, using as their leverage the funds they provide to electoral campaigns?
I mention labor because earlier this year they blocked publication of a second in a series of articles on Social Security reform, one that had to do with the management of union-owned firms. Since they are the major sponsor of the publishing firm, it was something to be expected. The reason it was blocked is simple, Social Security privatization is to be used as a major political issue in the 2004 election. Labor is part of the main Democratic coaltion. Any compromise on this issue would depoliticize it, rendering it useless in trying to unseat Mr. Bush.
Like the abortion issue, partisans get more mileage from the problem than the solution (you can't fundraise over a solved problem). This leads to the inquiry, are any of the solutions we discuss here possible without campaign finance reform first?
If not, what form should campaign finance reform take? Is public finance the way to go? If so, how do you settle nomination issues, since in House races, incumbents are rarely challenged for either the nominatin or the general election?
As to be expected, I have proposals in this area, which I have posted at
http://www.christianleft.net/GovernmentReform/elections.html. I propose that all campaign funds go to the political parties, who will distribute them to their candidates. At the primary phase, I propose holding a caucus where every candidate tries to pack in as many of their supporters as possible. Any candidate who can turn out 15% of the total attendance gets equally funded for the primary, regardless of incumbency. This solution also works with public funding, although breaking the direct link between individual candidates and individual interests will stop much of the current corruption disguised as electoral politics. As with ownership, the established interests will try to block this, so it must come be tried by a third party (such as the suggested Christian Democrats). If that party starts attracting sizable votes for adopting such a stand, it will become
mainstream, since parties - like all large groups - respond to fear most of all.
What do you think? Its been rather quiet on this board of late.
Michael Bindner