Blinded by Trusts: Critiquing the Reich proposal
Former-Secretary-of-Labor (that seems to be his title) Robert Reich has proposed instituting a blind trust fund for political contributions to all (I’m assuming Federal,) political candidates. This, on the face of it, seems like a reasonable idea to combat corruption. No one knows who contributed to them, so they’re free to say what they believe and not worry about being beholden to contributors. But I wonder, exactly how would you go about enforcing the proposal? Per the Federal Election Commission now:
If you are running for the U.S. House, Senate or the Presidency, you must register with the FEC once you (or persons acting on your behalf) receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching that $5,000 threshold, you must file a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2 [PDF]) authorizing a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on your behalf. Within 10 days of that filing, your principal campaign committee must submit a Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1 [PDF]). Your campaign will thereafter report its receipts and disbursements on a regular basis. Campaigns should download the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates [PDF] for more information on the laws that apply to them.
Federal election law is already pretty complicated. While most of the penalties for failure to file the appropriate contribution forms / committee designations / list updates, etc, etc, seem to take the form of fines (usually up to a certain percentage of collected monies,) or revocation of tax exempt status, I wonder how the enforcement would change under the Reich proposal. Would there be fines assessed for violations of blindness? If a zealous contributor walks up and hands a (duly registered, etc, etc) candidate a check, does he have to tear it up? What kind of enforcement regime would police the level of ignorance? Would the timing of deposits (i.e. the amount in trust at a given point in time,) be hidden? If not, how would one prevent simply saying, “I gave you this much at this time, check the numbers?”
The whole thing, or the whole campaign reporting scheme in general, strikes me as a relatively Rube Goldberg construction. Once again, the advocates for “democracy” seem to be making the entire procedure further and further remote from the average person. (Compare: what I was trying to say here.) Every compliance statement, every filing requirement, every long and labyrinthine statute, and every threat of administrative penalty drives the average man a little further away from representing his fellows.
Inspired top-down solutions may well work. But they must be enforced by someone; and the consequences of the enforcement need to be considered.
If you are running for the U.S. House, Senate or the Presidency, you must register with the FEC once you (or persons acting on your behalf) receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching that $5,000 threshold, you must file a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2 [PDF]) authorizing a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on your behalf. Within 10 days of that filing, your principal campaign committee must submit a Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1 [PDF]). Your campaign will thereafter report its receipts and disbursements on a regular basis. Campaigns should download the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates [PDF] for more information on the laws that apply to them.
Federal election law is already pretty complicated. While most of the penalties for failure to file the appropriate contribution forms / committee designations / list updates, etc, etc, seem to take the form of fines (usually up to a certain percentage of collected monies,) or revocation of tax exempt status, I wonder how the enforcement would change under the Reich proposal. Would there be fines assessed for violations of blindness? If a zealous contributor walks up and hands a (duly registered, etc, etc) candidate a check, does he have to tear it up? What kind of enforcement regime would police the level of ignorance? Would the timing of deposits (i.e. the amount in trust at a given point in time,) be hidden? If not, how would one prevent simply saying, “I gave you this much at this time, check the numbers?”
The whole thing, or the whole campaign reporting scheme in general, strikes me as a relatively Rube Goldberg construction. Once again, the advocates for “democracy” seem to be making the entire procedure further and further remote from the average person. (Compare: what I was trying to say here.) Every compliance statement, every filing requirement, every long and labyrinthine statute, and every threat of administrative penalty drives the average man a little further away from representing his fellows.
Inspired top-down solutions may well work. But they must be enforced by someone; and the consequences of the enforcement need to be considered.
posted by KP | 19.11.07
1 Comments:
I know, it has nothing to do with politics, but your friend Bill's interest in Marvin Gaye completely distracts me. Let's hear it for Goldfrapp's "Utopia," Ella Fitzgerald's "All The Things You Are," or Poloroid's "So Damn Beautiful." The claymation Grapevine hit wasn't that bad, but I cannot imagine Gaye's "Sexual Healing" playing as background music during driving, cooking, or cavorting...I'd much prefer Dredg's "Bug Eyes."
Post a Comment
<< Home