The Authors Reply

The respondents to our essay share our goal: a political system "of, by, and for the people." We all agree, too, that fundamental changes will be needed to achieve this goal, that working together is important, and that reform will take patience and steadfastness in the face of tremendous opposition, to paraphrase Senator Russell Feingold.

It is clear, however, that we have substantial differences on how best to reform the political system. We have absolutely no intention of claiming that the Clean Money Option alone will bring us there. Indeed it is, as our respondents suggest, only one of a series of steps to restore vitality to our democratic process. But two of the routes to reform suggested in the replies are, as we see it, not worth taking. One would require that the Supreme Court change its mind about Buckley, or that the Constitution be amended. The second is partial reform, which would lead us somewhere, but not necessarily to where we want to go. We consider these in turn, and then discuss some of the criticisms of the Clean Money Option itself.

1. Because there's little short-term hope of overturning Buckley, effective reform requires that we work within its confines. So that rules out many otherwise worthy proposals. In particular, as Josh Rosencranz argues, the courts are looking less favorably on restrictions (contribution limits) than on subsidies (providing voluntary public financing). Low contribution limits, as urged by Doug Phelps and passed by Arkansas voters, have been thrown out by courts in Missouri, the District of Columbia, and Oregon. Similarly, Bruce Ackerman's Patriot program--if it includes the provision that "only red-white-and-blue money could be legally used to finance political campaigns"--would also need constitutional modification or reinterpretation. Some provisions of McCain-Feingold--in-district funding requirements and bans on PACs--are also constitutionally suspect. We must do more than write our victories in the sand. (Here, we must simply disagree with Phelps' assertion that the Clean Money Option itself will require a constitutional amendment or overthrow of Buckley. A recent 8th Circuit decision, in Rosensteil v. Rodriguez, is promising on this score.)

As to a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending: while we agree in principle, we just don't think it is a practical strategy. What we hope, however, is that if organizations like US PIRG pursue it, they will not exclude other strategies. Even with a constitutional change, we would still need to enact meaningful reform addressing the source of campaign money. It is this process--the state-by-state efforts and passage of federal reform--that will set the stage for the day that the Buckley decision is relegated to history.

2. Just because the road has some constitutional obstacles doesn't mean that reformers should settle for partial measures. As John Stuart Mill said, "Against a great evil a small remedy does not produce a small result, it produces no result at all." The proposals outlined by several of the respondents deal inadequately with the most direct and corrosive aspect of our political system--the special interest financing of our elected officials. That is what the Clean Money Option addresses, and it does so simply. Additional provisions, like Senator Feingold's soft money and independent expenditure proposals are essential, and would be included in any federal Clean Money bill.

3. Apart from proposing alternative reform strategies, the respondents raise some questions about the Clean Money proposal itself. Zach Polett observes that we don't want systems that strengthen the power of politicians while weakening organized groups of voters. We couldn't agree more. By requiring the collection of a large number of small contributions to qualify for public funding, the Clean Money Option would create a system in which grassroots organizations of all types, as well as political parties, could be at the center. Money shouldn't be the only vehicle for accountability, though. Steve Rosenthal and Amanda Fuchs understand this as well, and we appreciate their willingness to support proposals along the lines of Maine's initiative.

Thomas Mann raises similar questions, and adds to them the need to address independent expenditures. We agree that there is such a need: While the Maine law doubles the public money given to complying candidates in response to this type of spending, the federal proposal caps that at a fivefold increase. What are the implications of this for the problem of costs raised by Daniel Lowenstein? Clean Money federal elections will cost the average taxpayer less a movie ticket and bag of popcorn per year. And certainly today's underfunded challengers will fare better in a Clean Money framework.

Lowenstein also asks about party-strengthening measures: we are all for them. The soft-money drug isn't strengthening our major parties. It has turned them into corporate money junkies, looking for the next fix of $100,000. That's why we wholeheartedly agree with Senator Feingold's soft money provision, and would support it as a stand-alone provision . . . in a heartbeat.

As for James Madison: According to Lowenstein's reading, American democracy is supposed to be a collision of private and public interests. We prefer to listen to Madison when he directly addresses the central role of money in politics: "Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more than the humble sons [and daughters] of obscure and unpropitious fortune."

---