Political Reform

Campaign Finance Reform

We cannot count on the government to do what is right if it is for sale to the highest bidder. Nor can we count on businesses that do work for the government doing a good job if they win government contracts solely due to their political connections and contributions. Pay to play must end in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. We must have substantial campaign finance reform.

We also have to do campaign finance reform right. Too many good government reforms have the consequence, intended or not, of reducing the power of working people and the poor. Political reform is not neutral. Depending on how it is done, it benefits some groups and harms others. I want reform, but not at the expense of weakening the political power of those who most need government to protect their interests.

Political reform of the right kind acknowledges, first, that we can’t have a democracy on the cheap. The best antidote to the political power of money is the political power of numbers. But working people and the poor tend to vote at lower rates than the rich. So, if we want a political system in which the poor and working people are well represented, we have to run political campaigns that bring people out to the polls. Some costs can be reduced if we require television and radio networks, which make a great deal of money using the public airwaves, to place political advertising on the air without charge. But, in a mass society like our own, it is impossible to communicate with and motivate people without a great deal of money. Even political campaigns, like my own, need substantial sums for printing, mailing, buttons, posters and so forth. So, while we need political reform that limits the influence of campaign contributors on political decisions, we have to make sure that our political reforms do not unduly limit amount of money that is spend on politics. We have to remember that even our expensive presidential campaigns cost much less that a major corporation typically spends rolling out a new product.

Second, we have to keep political parties strong. Philadelphia is one of the few place in the country where political parties remain a force to be reckoned with. One can find much to criticize about the Democratic ward leaders and committee people. But these mostly good people play a critical role in getting out the vote. Governor Rendell’s victory would not have been possible without a strong effort from the Democratic Party in Philadelphia.

Third, we need to strengthen unions. The progressive legislation of twentieth century could not have been passed without strong union support. These days it is ever more difficult to form new unions and to keep existing unions going. The Federal Government has largely taken the power of the states to regulate union organizing. But in recent years, as the Federal Government has come under the control of right wing Republicans, it is has tilted against unions in a dramatic fashion. Now is the time for the progressive states to play a larger role in regulating labor-management conflict and thereby helping unions to grow.

Fourth, we do need to limit the impact of privately donated money on political campaigns. This can be done, in part, by vigorously enforcing disclosure requirements and by limiting the amount that people can contribute. For reasons I mentioned above, those limits should not be set too low. Liberals tend to think that low contribution limits tend to benefit our candidates. But the evidence suggests that this is not true. Republicans and conservatives far out number Democrats and liberals among those people capable of making even small donations of $50 and $100. Over the years large contributions from wealthy Democrats has partly made up for this gap.

And that leads to the fifth and most important point: We need public financing of political campaigns. This is vitally important because, as I argued above, it is important that Democratic candidates have enough money to spend to run effective campaigns. It is also important because there is ultimately no way to entirely limit the ability of the rich and corporations to use their money for political purposes. Though they allow the government to limit campaign contributions to political candidates, the courts have ruled, rightly in my view, that people do have a right to spend their money to advance their own ideals and interests. Thus well-off supporters of Republican candidates can form independent committees to defend their own political perspective.

The best way to counter private money is with a great deal of public money. Ultimately, all resources, including money, have diminishing marginal returns. (Campaign commercials don’t have much more impact when they are seen fifteen as when they are seen ten times.) It does not matter much if Democratic candidates get out-spent, provided that they have enough money to get their message across.

So we need both limits on contributions and extensive public financing of political campaigns in both city and state government. And, as Mayor Street has argued, we need it at both levels of government at once. To limit campaign contributions in Philadelphia city elections, without doing the same thing in Pennsylvania as a whole, will give state officials an unwarranted influence on our local elections.

Open Government

It is incredibly difficult today for citizens to determine what their legislators are doing. (I know this as I have been spending weeks researching Representative Youngblood’s record.) The General Assembly must make this process easier. It must, first, provide clear explanations on the web of the purpose of every piece or legislation or amendment proposed. Second, it must provide us with information about how our representatives voted on each bill.

Instead of moving in the direction of openness, the House of Representatives has been moving in the opposite direction. At the beginning of the current session, the House of Representatives adopted HR 1, which did away with the requirement that each bill or amendment be clearly explained before a vote is taken. These rules were supported by all the Republicans and only one Democrat, Rosita Youngblood.

Until the rules of the House are changed, I will provide summaries on my own website of each bill and amendment. And I will record exactly how I vote on each one and explain each vote. My constituents will not find it difficult to find out where I stand.

Redistricting

Partisan redistricting of State House and Senate Districts and US House Districts has become a major barrier to effective government. Partisan redistricting sometimes biases politics in favor of one party or another. More often, however, it protects incumbents from challenge, thus making government less responsive to changes in public opinion.

It is time to turn redistricting over to non-partisan commissions that have a number of aims. First, natural political communities should be kept within a single district. (For example, Germantown, Mt. Airy, East Falls, and Chestnut Hill should, as far as possible, not be divided into different State House and Senate districts. Second, aside from geographic communities, districts should be politically diverse. Our aim should be competitive not one-sided districts. Meeting the first two requirement should help insure that districts are created that can be won by historically underrepresented groups and, especially, African Americans.

Election Systems

Our political system makes it very difficult for third parties to play a useful role in our political life. While there are certain advantages of the two-party system, given the nature of political conflict in America today, it is difficult for all tendencies to be represented by our two parties. Even worse, under our current system, popular third parties can actually distort our elections. Ralph Nader’s role in helping George Bush become President is a good example.

The dangers of third parties can be minimized, and their effectiveness increased, if we adopt more flexible electoral systems. I would like to see Pennsylvania experiment with the Single Transferable Vote system in some local and state elections. These experiments will not be terribly helpful, of course, if we do not reform redistricting.

How to Reform Politics

It will be very difficult to bring about many of these reforms, if only because they cut against the self-interest of most politicians. To accomplish them will require four tactical moves: First, it will take a mass movement of Pennsylvanians demanding political reform, a movement backed by some leading politicians and the editorial writers at our leading newspapers. Second, this movement will be helped if the Democrats can capture one house of the General Assembly. If, for example, neither party dominates the entire legislature and thus cannot use the redistricting system to benefit themselves, they might be more open to reform. Third, many of these reforms will have to be introduced in piecemeal fashion, even if that creates short term inequities and distortions. For example, campaign finance reform would be more palatable to incumbent state legislators if it did not apply to them, but only to races in which there is no incumbent. And, fourth, if we want them to accept a greater risk of defeat, state legislators and other politicians will have to be given higher pensions that become effective after fewer yeas service. This is not good public policy, as a whole. The pensions we offer state officials are high enough. But, again, some short term budgetary costs are worth it if they lead to long term reform.

Back to Legislating-Overview