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