My super sweet PAC

By voting for anyone other than former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT), you would be voting against the candidate who is legitimately most qualified to be president. Just vote for him. But enough of that for now. Over the past couple of months, you’ve probably heard a lot about “super PACs” and what they can do for political campaigns. With the first primary drawing to a close, it’s time to ask: Are they really worth anything?

They certainly are to campaigns themselves. Super PACs can raised unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and labor unions. They typically use it to buy TV ad space, the most expensive item in a politician’s media toolbox, to pump up their chosen candidate. This year’s contenders:

• Huntsman: Our Destiny
• Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): Restore Our Future
• Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Winning Our Future
• Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX): Make Us Great Again
• Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): Endorse Liberty
• Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): Red, White and Blue

As you can see, originality in naming is not these groups’ strong suit. Because each candidate can say he has a super PAC supporting him exclusively, you might think the concept is akin to a charitable arm of an educational institution or hospital. But those charitable arms are actually attached to the bodies for whom they raise money. Super PACs are, in theory, independent of the campaign and are not permitted to coordinate activities with it.

If you believe no candidate’s handlers have ever overstepped this boundary before, or that there are mechanisms in place to make sure they aren’t happening, get off the computer and go back to second grade. I am personally not opposed to corporations and unions donating to candidates (assuming they check with their shareholders/members first); that keeps the candidates honest. But to bundle them with individual donations in this way obscures the truth about the origins of the money from the public.

To be fair, the PACs are required to disclose their donors. But how many people do you think are likely to seek them out? How will we know the effect on the candidate’s platform until they take office? And even though individuals can donate to these things, how much of it is theirs and how much of it is from actual special interests?

These are just a few questions that deserve some hard answers after this election cycle is out. This may be overly idealistic, but donations from individual voters will always be the most meaningful, and a candidate who can refuse special-interest donations but does not falls short of the ideal.

For those times you wish you were affiliated

With every new error committed by a less electable candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, my toleration for excuses not to support former Gov./Ambassador Jon Huntsman (R-UT) shrinks. Ask anyone, even his hardest-core supporters, and they’ll tell you it’s his propensity for moderate rhetoric and red meat-free policy proposals that are holding him back. “Retail politics” is the game, and nobody thinks he can play it.

OK. So he at times has been excessively blunt in his criticisms of his own party. As if that’s never been done before; how often does Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) tout herself as the savior of “constitutional conservatism?” (The same Constitution that says nothing about people’s sex lives? Right.) Compared to his record as a whole, that’s pretty petty, isn’t it? Nonetheless he has to contend with primary voters who would rather have an ideologically pure candidate win with 51 percent than a moderate candidate win with 70 percent. Priorities, people.

So where does that leave independent voters who might have to choose between two sides of the same nutcased coin? We’ve talked about open primaries. We’ve talked about putting together a third-party ticket online. Given a choice, I’ll take the latter, assuming candidates on party ballots are eligible. But it might not have to be that complicated. Here’s something I’d like to see: the National Independent Straw Poll (NISP).

Every now and then, some media outlet or think tank or other will commission its own straw poll, focusing on one voter demographic or another, mostly along party and ideological lines, and usually within one state at a time. The NISP would apply only to voters who are registered as Independent or declined-to-state. It would be held about six to eight weeks before the major state primaries, and as you can tell from the name, it would be national. No Labels would run it, since I wouldn’t trust anyone else. And all the major- and third-party candidates would be on the ballot.

I defy any of the candidates on the Republican stage to tell me that independents are a voting bloc they can do without. Remember that we represent 24 percent of the voting population. Capturing that 24 percent would be enough to crush one’s opponent in the general election. But, if one candidate is too busy with their base to bother trying to win, well, they’ll suffer the consequences. It’s not our problem.

If the NISP were held today, based on the sentiments of my fellow centrist/moderate/independent bloggers, Huntsman could easily sweep it. And if only he saw the value in that, so much the better . . . for us.

Just put your cards on the table

When Canadians vote, we are required to bring ID that shows our address and our photo. I don’t have a driver’s license, so I use my health insurance card and my MLCC (Manitoba Liquor Control Commission) card. It’s not much of a hassle because I have all my IDs in my bag, except for my passport. But how about people who don’t have any ID at all? That’s the bone of contention over a related law that was just signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC).

The law makes South Carolina the tenth state to adopt legislation requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls. If they don’t have it, they are required to obtain a new voter registration card with a photo. According to The State, the largest daily newspaper in South Carolina, the state Election Commission will foot the bill for the new IDs, at a cost ranging from $500,000 to $1 million; nobody seems to be clear on that.

From the outset, it seems like a fair compromise. People of voting age who don’t have a photo ID for whatever reason – never went to university, couldn’t afford a driver’s license, the list goes on – get it for free, and no one can argue that the idea is out of the public interest. Frankly, I would rather have a single voter registration card with a photo so I wouldn’t have to keep my wallet out longer than necessary. (Petty, I know, but I had to come up with something.)

But the opposition here is to the same thing that has come up in discussions of net neutrality legislation: Is it proportional to the problem it’s designed to fix? As much as I support net neutrality as a concept, I have seen no evidence of even an attempt at a corporate takeover of the Internet. To justify photo ID requirements, supporters cite voter fraud. Is there a nationwide epidemic of voter fraud that nobody told me about? Has America sunk to the level of Haiti?

It’s important to answer this question before pursuing most bills. Unless someone has a good reason to bring it up, it can waste time in the legislature while it’s being debated, and it can waste money for taxpayers after it’s enacted. I can’t imagine that the most vocal opponents of voter fraud would appreciate being tricked into blowing resources on something of minimal importance.

Even that little mishap doesn’t merit a legislative solution, ridiculous as it is. But it’s something legislators should expect of, and demand from, each other, if only so they can do their jobs more efficiently. I’m sure Haley has more time on her hands now that the South Carolina GOP primary is over, but it would still help.

The impossible logistics of open primaries

Primaries are a very exciting event for us all – or, at least, those of us who are willing to align themselves in full with a political party. Not being one of those people, I’d have little to do during primary season but offer recommendations. Under an open primary system, which has been advocated by a number of other centrist bloggers in recent weeks, voters could choose a party’s nominee for the general election regardless of their own affiliation, or the lack thereof.

The centrist argument for open primaries is that it allows independent voters to give a more moderate candidate a bump. From what I can tell, it would also allow partisan voters from the opposite party to come in and provide an influx of votes for the candidate they take the least seriously. And don’t tell me that no official party member would have so little of a life that they’d actually go for it. Imagine the ensuing Facebook campaigns!

Sol’s post cites Walt Pozgay, a letter writer in Kentucky, who had this to say:

I know that many will say that I should have joined a party. While my reasoning is beyond the scope of this letter, I simply cannot. Neither should I be forced to join one party or the other just so that I can vote for positions that should not have anything to do with party affiliation to begin with.

I can’t disagree with Pozgay’s sentiment (though where he comes from, primaries are often the only elections – no generals), but I still can’t bring myself to say that an open primary is the answer. The concept is disingenuous when we’re still operating within the two-party paradigm. Besides, I seriously doubt there would be a high enough percentage of centrist primary voters for the outcome to suit them. Rank-and-file party members and hyper-partisan firebreathers would always be larger contingents.

Sol’s other argument is that taxpayers should not fund events like primaries in which many of them don’t have a say. Now that I agree with. If the primary is only going to serve one party in particular, that party should be responsible for paying for it. No sufficient argument can be made for keeping public funding in place.

Because independents, and indeed centrists, are by their nature an intellectually amorphous mass, there is no way for us to agree on our ideal candidate, much less put them up before the primary. If you want a candidate who agrees with you most of the time, you might have to become that candidate – or help change the political culture as Gordon Chaffin recommends.

Provided by the support of taxpayers like you

You know what’s even better than writing about elections? Writing about the policies that will determine the fate of elections. (According to moi.) Case in point, today’s “largely symbolic 239-160 vote” in the House of Representatives that would end public financing of presidential campaigns. I figure everything that has no chance of clearing the Senate or President Obama’s desk during this session will be known as “largely symbolic.” Also, everything with little fiscal impact.

Since the Watergate scandal, taxpayers have been permitted to check off a box on their tax forms that would send $3 (why can’t we fund the arts that way?) to a federal campaign fund from which a candidate who forgoes private fundraising can take an $84 million lump sum. The justification at the time was that it would “reduce the influence of unregulated private donations.” Both President Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) refused to take this option in 2008, and instead raised their money privately.

Today, only 7 percent of taxpayers check off that box. If the program were eliminated altogether, it would generate $617 million in savings. Proponents want those savings to be used for deficit reduction and nothing else. According to my calculator, it will shave a whopping 0.0004 percent off the $1.4 trillion deficit. How very effectual. Next thing you know, we’ll have a “largely symbolic vote” on switching from Charmin to generic toilet paper in congressional bathrooms for the sake of fiscal responsibility and stuff.

But every bit of savings adds up on top of the last one, and it’s good to start small right after the State of the Union. (During which Obama himself called for deficit reduction and less spending, doncha know.) All such measures must be decided on the basis of principle. And in principle, considering Americans are allowed to choose if they want their money to be used for this purpose, it does very little to hurt them.

In fact, it doesn’t hurt anyone, unless you consider laziness on the campaign trail to be a form of self-hurt, which I do. By taking these funds instead of the ones provided to you directly, you are essentially admitting that there aren’t enough voters who would think about doing that. Or, if you are popular, it’s an admission that you like free money too much. In any case, a candidate with a large voter pool wouldn’t need them.

At the end of the day, only little-known third party candidates benefit from this program, and only if they meet the requirements. I’d like a third-party president as much as any good centrist, but they, more than anyone, should fundraise on the basis of merit.

Dude, where’s my district?

Picture this: You are the Democratic incumbent in a swing state that has leaned conservative at various times, depending on the political winds. As predicted, many of the midterm races on the state level end up going to the Republicans, but you managed to squeak by solely by virtue of your incumbency. The new composition of your state’s Legislature means you have a lot of new opponents. They have the power to redraw the state’s district map – and take away the district you have served for years.

For the politically unsavvy, this may seem like the plotline of a political thriller that happens to be a bit low on thrills. But it can happen, and it certainly may this year in states such as New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. State politicians who have more long-term thinking skills than others have either seen this opportunity already or cackled with glee at the reminder of it. Not only does it clear their opponents out of the way, but it bodes well for them should they choose to run federally.

Most states do give control of redistricting to their Legislatures; some don’t even need to consider it, as their population only warrants them one House representative. (Another note to the politically unsavvy: Senators don’t have to deal with this redistricting business. Every state gets two senators regardless of population.) It would be nice if we could have faith that the sitting members of said Legislatures would keep partisanship from getting in the way of fair redistricting practices. But when they don’t have to, can we expect them to?

Six states – Arizona, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey and Washington – have a different method that works along these lines: There is an independent redistricting commission with an odd number of members. No more than 50 percent of those members can be from any one political party. So if the commission has nine members, four would be Republicans, four would be Democrats and one would be an independent. (Thank God for that.)

Why hasn’t it occurred to every other state in the union that this is the way to do things? Granted, a couple are so blindly blue or red already that even fair redistricting wouldn’t save them. But it does allow for state districts to be determined for their truly important characteristics – population, relative size, etc. – and none that would benefit anyone for strictly partisan reasons.

Sadly, were the federal government to attempt to legislate this across the board, it would look like they were worried about losing again. Therefore, voters must demand that their districts make sense every session.

Meet our friends from out of town

It wasn’t unreasonable for opponents of loosening campaign finance restrictions to express fears over a possible increase in foreign cash. It is, however, unreasonable for those opponents to assert that this is going on without any evidence. That behavior is not restricted to MoveOn.org, which doesn’t have a reputation for thinking rationally. It’s spilling into the vice president’s office.

Yes, Vice President Joe Biden is at it again, though less so than MoveOn.org. The former simply placed the burden of proof upon pro-Republican interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Are they spending foreign money or aren’t they? He did not offer any real reasons to raise this question. The latter, on the other hand, “began airing an ad in Illinois against Senate candidate Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) using his support from the chamber to link him to foreign corporations that, in the ad’s words, ‘threaten American jobs.’”

Assuming this were actually happening, it might be a problem, but not definitely. The idea of a foreign executive going through an American interest group to secure the loyalty of one candidate seems slightly farfetched. If they cared enough about someone like Kirk, whose greatest victory in the House has been a seat on the Appropriations Committee, why would they use the Chamber? Kirk isn’t such an unknown entity that they can’t talk to him directly.

In any event, the Chamber says it keeps its “minimal” foreign donations separate from its political funds; to do otherwise would be illegal. I doubt an organization with their clout would be stupid enough to take a chance like that just to elect conservatives. So even the idea of the Chamber being complicit in this activity can be branded highly unlikely, let alone its practice.

The above link quotes two election lawyers with differing opinions on how to make sure this doesn’t happen. The first, Richard L. Hasen of Loyola Law School, suggests the government should take “random audits” of political campaigns, which would not be made public unless there was actual impropriety. The second, James Bopp, says this would “chill free speech.” Both of them are off the mark. The audits could yield different results depending on the government of the day, but only those with something to hide would be “chilled.”

I propose instead that candidates begin to independently produce itemized lists of their donations, to be checked over by a district-appointed auditor. Any candidate who does not do this after it becomes a trend will look like they have something to hide, thereby creating mistrust among the electorate. Who would risk that? The Chamber sure doesn’t.

Smile: You’re on campaign camera

One of the biggest wins President Obama has ever pulled off was as a Senate candidate in Illinois, when Jack Ryan was his Republican opponent before being replaced by Alan Keyes. Ryan’s campaign had dispatched a young staffer named Justin to follow Obama around with a video camera, at times in more private moments than politicians are accustomed to being watched. One day Obama informed a group of real reporters that Justin had been hired by the Ryan people “to stalk [him] wherever [he went].” All of them descended upon poor dumb Justin and bombarded him with questions.

That certainly wasn’t the last time a political operative did that. Gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton (D-MN) has become so annoyed with “trackers” that he is now demanding rules to keep them in line. He suggested either both parties placing a moratorium on tracking, restricting them to public events, or coming up with a way to identify them to the candidates.

The purpose of tracking is to catch an opposing candidate in a weak moment and use particularly juicy clips in campaign material. Dayton is not afraid of this, but he was irritated with members of Tom Emmer’s (R-MN) campaign filming him at Saturday’s Game Fair. Had I been speaking with Dayton at his booth at the time, I would have grabbed the camera from the tracker’s hands and forced him or her to eat it, piece by piece. No one is allowed to record my face or voice without my express consent, even if I’m not the target. No one.

Therefore, these rules can protect trackers as well as holding them down. Of course Republicans are fighting back against Dayton’s statements, one of them suggesting he “would like to hide from the voters.” Given that he wants to restrict trackers’ access to public events only, hiding from voters is clearly the last thing Dayton wishes to do. Keeping private conversations just that, private, is far from an unreasonable request.

What about this idea of identification? I can dream up myriad versions: hats with neon letters that spell out “TRACKER” (refer to the Monty Python “Lion Tamer” sketch); playing the Police’s “Every Breath You Take” on a tape recorder after getting within 15 feet; or wearing pants with the opposing candidate’s face silk-screened on both sides of the butt. Take your pick. I’ve got more.

Or, to save time, the candidates could refuse to deploy trackers and stick to campaigning on the basis of issues and, if nothing else, embarrassing moments occurring in the public view. You know, the way people with something to run for do it.

The Tea Party’s Constitution confusion

Until yesterday I was unaware that “some people” would like to overturn the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators. Columnist David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette broke that story, but neglected to specify who “some people” are, only that they are tea partiers. He claims they would like to have senators appointed by state legislatures, presumably to prevent that pesky possibility of not getting their candidate. Which, obviously, wouldn’t be prevented.

As a resident of a country in which senators are appointed by prime ministers, despite empty promises to make it an elected body – followed by partisan appointments, in our current leader’s case – I say this idea should not be given the slightest consideration. While House members represent individual constituencies, senators represent their state as a whole, and the state should decide who deserves to speak for it. The only people who would benefit under this system are state legislators, if not just governors, and people who don’t really care about the Senate and value efficiency over choice.

That’s all anyone can say. Let’s move on to the other proposition on which Shribman shed light, the reform of the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote system works like this: “A large number of states would designate their electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote in the presidential election, even if their own citizens overwhelmingly rejected that candidate.” Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington already operate this way.

To which I say: Huh? Are proponents of the National Popular Vote trying to make elections less democratic, or do they honestly believe it is more democratic? “One of the arguments for the measure is that it would make the votes of all Americans, not just those in states with big electoral-vote totals, more meaningful,” writes Shribman. The second one, then. Again: Huh?

Idea: Forget the electoral votes! Elect on the basis of the real national popular vote! I have never understood the purpose of the Electoral College; the possibility that a presidential candidate could be elected by winning the states with the most electoral votes, even with a lower percentage of popular votes, persists. This is, simply put, antithetical to democracy. It’s almost Canadian.

If Shribman is correct and these are Tea Party proposals, they must decide for certain if the constructionism they love to brag about applies to the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, not to mention Article I, Section 1, Clause 2.

Labor-ing for equal campaign finance restrictions

Any Republicans who think the influence of unions is a problem in U.S. elections ought to take a look at this before they say anything more about it. Compared to us, you have it awfully good.

That said, Republicans who backed disclosure as an alternative to campaign finance restrictions are now rather upset with the disclosure guidelines proposed by Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD). As they see it, his bill would apply only to corporations, traditionally GOP donors, and “exempt” the unions, traditionally Democratic donors. As it really is, the bill applies to both corporations and unions but has extra restrictions on the former, due mainly in part to the structural advantages they have over the latter.

The bill . . . would require corporate and union groups airing certain types of election ads to name their top five donors on screen and on their websites, as well as feature their top official on camera in the ads.

I assume by “certain types” that they mean attack ads, specifically those that address American Spectator-style conspiracy theories or are simply driven by pure ideology, and make no mention of the candidate’s actual platform. I would personally like to see a five-second delay with a disclaimer before all ads like that so we can change the channel.

Anyway, this part of the plan seems simple enough, although putting one’s top five donors on the screen in a 30-second ad seems pretty excessive. The top one should be enough to give readers of the news sufficient information about who they’re hearing from, and easier to read. Let’s get to the corporate restrictions, which include

. . . barring those that received government bailouts from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as those with government contracts or that are more than 20 per cent foreign-owned, from airing ads.

Granted, if corporations meeting those criteria had any brains left, they would know perfectly well not to bite the hand that feeds until they had fully paid off their loans. I’m not sure about that percentage of foreign ownership, however. 51 per cent ought to be the threshold at which we can agree that a non-American made the decision.

If unions ever had to deal with things like this, they would be facing the exact same restrictions, yet they do not. Perhaps Republicans would be happier if they got their own unique set of restrictions. I’ll leave it to those complaining about this, especially Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), to come up with some. The ball’s in his court.