Some believe our government is out of control because our politics lack discipline, the leading culprit being Citizens United v. FEC that opened the floodgates for unlimited campaign contributions from corporations, special interest groups and wealthy individuals. But in the Deprogramming101 world of counter-intuitive thinking, one can argue our political environment is out of whack because it functions on the same principles as our government. The issue is not contributions (revenues in public sector speak), but expenditures.
The United States faces growing deficits and ever mounting debt because, despite de jure congressional control over borrowing, the fear of a global economic Armageddon if America welshes on its financial obligations ensures this power to control the federal purse strings will likely NEVER be invoked. Therefore, fiscal discipline is not required. Lack of revenues is not the core issue. The true culprit is the absence of a spending cap.
In other words, Citizens United, from an electoral perspective, is the equivalent of a printing press for campaign dollars. Although a candidate does not have direct control over the use of PAC funds, it does not take a genius for the sponsors/donors of a political action committee to find ways to coordinate message and tactics even without direct communications between the PAC and their chosen candidate. It is the equivalent of two alcoholics independently advocating for free booze. No overt or covert planning needed.
To shame elected officials to make more rational budgeting decisions, the process is often compared to the way households manage their finances. The guiding rule? Spend only what you take in. But that is a fallacy. Just look at the level of personal debt in the United States. Like their government, most citizens are grossly over-leveraged. A better analogy would be the spending caps imposed on teams in the NFL, NBA or NHL.
Although not perfect in practice, the theory is solid. Given a finite amount of resources, who can most efficiently expend capital to build a winning team? How do the New England Patriots assemble a championship dynasty? By asking a star player like Tom Brady to take a smaller salary than he might command in the open market in order to surround him with a more talented supporting cast.
So, how might this work in campaigns? Drop the soft money charade. Allow campaigns to raise as much money as they want as long as donations are reported in real time (i.e. when they deposited in the campaign bank account) and available for review immediately on line. But place a cap on spending.
For the sake of argument, let’s make the cap equal to two dollars ($2.00) per resident of the jurisdiction. According to the 2010 census, the average population of a congressional district was approximately 720,000 residents. Therefore, a congressional campaign would have a spending cap of $1.44 million. The limit for a senate race in California would be $78.8 million. And the campaigns in the next presidential election would be restricted to a total of $700 million.
I know. Campaign costs are not equal across the country. So a relative cost factor might need to be applied to the spending base. But someone has already calculated those differentials. The General Accounting Office annually produces calculations for reimbursement of travel costs in different regions of the country. The same factors could be applied to the spending caps.
An added bonus of this system would be the insight voters would have about how candidates manage money. Questions would not focus on how much a candidate can raise but how wisely he or she spends those dollars. Did their campaigns allocate funds in the most efficient way to have maximum impact? While there is no guarantee such discipline would carry over once elected, the campaign becomes practice for what the winner will face once they take office.
Again, I would never pretend campaigns tied to spending caps is a panacea for all that ails America. But the current system is not working. As we approach the Fourth of July, maybe we should heed Yankee Doodle and “stick a feather in the CAP.” Spending cap that is.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP