Capitalism the game we play; Choosing the Refs

Disinterested : free of any interest especially of a pecuniary nature :  impartial

 

Capitalism is the game we play and government creates and enforces the rules. Money (capital) is the marker by which we keep score in the game. As much as possible we want the rule makers and enforcers to be impartial and free of any interest especially of a pecuniary nature. We want our politicians disinterested. 

Now if the people who are writing and enforcing the rules are playing the game that is communism where government owns the means of production (capital). That is one of the minor reasons why it ultimately failed but the principle reason why it wasn’t fair. 

On the other hand, if the people who are playing the game pay the people to make rules and call it the way they need it that’s bribery but for many people across the political spectrum that is also campaign finance in its current state.  While campaign contributions don’t go directly into the pockets of the politicians, if there livelihood is proportionally dependent on the largesse of their contributors then they are not free of any pecuniary interest and are no longer disinterested. Whether it is the lament of this influence of the 1% or the cries to “Drain the Swamp!” people across the political spectrum recognize a problem.

Free:    1) Made or done as a matter of choice and right: not compelled or restricted

One of the hurdles, and rightfully so, in crafting meaningful campaign finance reform is the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”

Free     2) Not costing or charging anything

Free speech is a sine qua non of democracy and this is most especially true of political free speech. That said when it comes to campaign financing its not the speech that is being paid for but the airtime or print space to make it accessible. So is “free speech” really free if it cost money? Do the Koch brothers or George Soros really have more free speech than I do just because they have more money? I think most readers from across the political spectrum feel that the answer to the last question should be no.

So is there a way to get money out of the political process at least in terms of campaign finance and still protect free speech? I have some ideas about this but at least for the time being I am not going to be prescriptive. What I would like to do instead is suggest a process for arriving at the solution to this problem. The process is not mine so I am going to give a little history of how this idea came about and then discuss the solution or more correctly the framework for a solution.

I am quite certain none of you know who Frank MacConnell was.  He owned a sports shop in Claremont New Hampshire. In June 1995 newly elected Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and President Clinton met in an open town hall type meeting taking questions from the audience for nearly an hour.  Mr. MacConnell asked the first question (It is at about the 11 minute mark of the youtube video cited.)[1] He asked the then two most powerful people in the country if they would support the idea of a commission based on the military base closing commission that in a non-partisan (disinterested) manner come up with comprehensive campaign finance reform that congress and the president could only vote up or down on without change or amendment.

Both politicians agreed on the spot to support such a plan. However, once they got back to Washington they backed away or did little to support the plan. Of course, it never did go anywhere and Frank MacConnell died the following year at the age of 61 a disappointed man.

The reason why it died and is not likely to come to fruition anytime soon is that the incumbents got their livelihoods playing the game as it is currently constructed. On this matter, probably more than any matter they vote on, they are not disinterested.  For that very reason the solution to campaign finance should be put in the hands of those who are disinterested. *

A few years ago Gordon Wood professor of history at Brown and a Pulitzer Prize winning author of a book on the founding fathers noted that the singular characteristic that distinguished all of them was that they went about the serious and profound work of creating our Republic as disinterested participants in the process.  

In democracy we have surrendered to the salutary servitude of representative government. As much as possible we need the people who make and enforce the rules to be disinterested. If they are not then we don’t have representative government because those who are chosen don’t represent us.

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x_eyDddlYE

* The Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 is one of the most successful pieces of legislation I have seen in my lifetime. Instead of the pork barrel politics of “I’ll save your base if you save mine” a disinterested commission decides what is essential to the efficient maintenance of the armed forces. While this solution is most appropriate for campaign finance reform this format could be used for almost any type of legislative initiative. For instance, congress could appoint a commission and set a dollar amount and time frame for infrastructure repair. Instead of bridges to nowhere, the paying public would get the most critical jobs attended to without a lot or any pork.