Dano: Public Campaign Financing? It Doesn't Matter

(Note: Reed's post gives a succinct history of campaign finance in the U.S., so I'll not repeat it. I will also avoid repeating his citations for brevity, though I relied on some of them also.) 

Well, for a change, I got a coin-flip this week that threw me for a loop. I am supposed to argue that we should maintain the public campaign finance system for federal elections (and, perhaps, mandate its use). But, by golly, after my research, I decided that it doesn't make a lick of difference where the candidates get their "individual contributions." I guess that sounds confusing.

The term, "public financing," is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is that money provided by the government comes from individual taxpayers (private citizens) who decided to contribute $3.00 of their personal tax obligation to the campaign finance fund for presidential elections. Yes, this is a small amount from each donor, but it adds up (though, as of 2006, fewer than 10% of taxpayers contributed annually--more on this issue, later). Moreover, there is an element of private donations within the public finance system, because it only provides "matching funds" of up to $250 per private donation. "Private financing" simply means that individuals donate directly to candidates instead of doing so through their tax returns. The difference is that individuals can (and do) contribute considerably more, though also limited by law, through this direct-donation mechanism. Also by law, corporations are prohibited from donating directly to candidates under both systems.

Fundamentally, proponents of public campaign financing say that this system reduces the possibility of corruption (because the source of candidate funding is known in advance, and is above-board), and helps to minimize the relative advantage of having deeper coffers than other candidates, such that "buying an election" becomes less likely. Under this system, candidates are not permitted to use more than $50,000 of their own money for their campaigns (unlike the substantial personal financial input provided by previous candidates, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few). Of concern to candidates of parties other than Democratic or Republican, public financing is not available to them.

Those who support private campaign financing suggest that it, alone, protects the constitutional right of (unlimited) free speech, and that this system is regulated sufficiently to guard against corruption. The system is said to be superior because each donor has the right to direct their support to a specific candidate (where no such ability exists with public finance funds), further protecting the rights of donors to not support a candidate they don't like. Moreover, there are no limits on how much can be amassed in the aggregate, so if a candidate enjoys support from a much larger proportion of the public than his/her opponents, then his advantage in advertising funds is proportionate and fair. Finally, any party's candidates can get this form of funding -- not just Democrats and Republicans.

So, why doesn't it matter which system we use?

Of minor relevance, there are some equalizing factors between the two systems. First, the advantages of private financing are mitigated by available funds through public financing: 1) public financing subsidizes the nomination conventions of those candidates that accept it (not an insubstantial cost), and 2) public financing pays for the costs of attorneys and other administrative costs (also nothing to sneeze at). But that's not the main issue.

A less obvious issue is that, while we all know that public financing, at least in the 2008 campaign, garnered Senator McCain only about half the money that was collected by President-elect Obama, this is a consequence of both systems being utilized. Remember, above I noted that income tax contributions to public financing were made by fewer than 10% of taxpayers in recent years. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-17-preztax_N.htm?csp=34)

 If, however, candidates were required to use public financing (or, more accurately, prohibited from using private financing), the percentage of citizens choosing to donate with their tax returns would likely rise precipitously.  So, while the free choice to accept private financing exists along with the public financing system, a candidate can choose either method and take his chances, but private financing seems to hold the advantage so long as it remains available. This, by itself, is no reason to mandate one or the other.

The overarching reason the system chosen doesn't matter is that they each deal with "hard money" contributions only. Both systems allow expenditures of "soft money" contributions through the activities of political action committees (PACs), and by organizations known as "527s" and "501(c)s." Taken together, these organizations spend unlimited donation monies to support issues (directly), and candidates (indirectly ). The only "free speech" limitation on these groups is that they cannot suggest voting for or against a particular candidate. They can (and do), however, say things like, "candidate A is the only patriotic contender," and "candidate B is clearly unpatriotic." The power of these groups to affect elections was well illustrated by the soft-money-funded "swift boat" campaign against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race -- many believe this advertising strategy cost Kerry the election. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of these groups to advertise in this way, and no legislation short of a Constitutional amendment can change this fact (see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 [1976]). So, essentially, as long as PACs, 527s, and 501(c)s can operate with impunity, their impact on election outcomes is far more relevant than the direct ads by the candidates, regardless of the sources of their funding.

Some might argue that direct candidate ads have a great deal of impact on voters' choices. That may be true, but I submit that the number of ads, and the geographic spread of them, is not as important to campaigns as it once was because of the advent of 24 hour news networks that endlessly replay the campaign ads of the candidates during the entire course of the election cycle. Even though John McCain spent far less than Barack Obama, for instance, I saw every important political ad that McCain produced as many times as I saw Obama's ads (okay...maybe not quite as many times, but effectively so). The news pundits see these ads as free content, and this essentially gives every candidate free air time. Unfortunately, the news outlets also give free replay time to the ads from the PACs, 527s and 501(c)s. So, again, the power of soft money organizations remains superior. Until this changes (through FCC regulations on media or a Constitutional amendment limiting soft money free speech), there is simply no important difference between the public and private campaign finance systems.

Campaign finance is a very complicated issue, to be sure. But concerning ourselves with an either/or argument over public or private donations is, quite simply, a misdirected effort. Both systems are regulated to prevent corruption, with debatable success, perhaps. But campaign finance reform needs to concern itself primarily with soft money controls if we expect to level the playing field for all candidates and prevent corruption and influence peddling in presidential campaigns.

Reed: Presidential Candidates Don't Need Our Tax Money to Run a Campaign

Hello, folks, and welcome back to Butt and Rebutt. As you've noted, we have been somewhat out of the loop, but this week we're back with a vengeance, and our topic is, "Should public financing continue to be available to candidates for president?". Based on our coin toss, I will argue that public financing for national campaigns has outlived its usefulness if, indeed, it ever had any.

Our recent election brought this issue to the forefront in a surprising way. The Republican candidate, Senator McCain, opted to accept public funds, while the historically cash-strapped Democrats prodded Senator Obama to forego public funding. The Democratic strategy, fueled by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, proved to be an overwhelming obstacle to Sen. McCain's ability to compete for expensive media time, and many pundits are convinced that, once again, this election was won and lost on the ledgers, not at the ballot box.

Sen. McCain, however, had little choice but to opt for public money. He was, after all, the co-author of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) McCain-Feingold Act, more properly known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. President Bush signed the act into law on March 27, 2002, making it the first meaningful revision to laws pertaining to public financing of elections since the first such measures began being administered by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in 1976 (see www.fec.gov/pages/bcra).

It is important to note that 1976 was not the year that this issue came to the forefront. In 1966, Congress passed legislation that would have provided public money to Presidential candidates by funneling funds through the political parties. According to the FEC, the law was suspended a year later, for obvious reasons (www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund). In fact, not even in 1966 were Americans first prodded to look at such a system. Fifty-nine years earlier, according to the FEC, Theodore Roosevelt proposed that public financing of national elections was the only means through which a fair result could be obtained.

Roosevelt's argument in 1907 was the same as that which resonates today - money, and I mean big money, perverts the political realm and insures that only the wealthy and well-heeled can attain high office. To the founding fathers, service was expected and personal gain was set aside. But by Roosevelt's time, special interests had already begun to pervert the process and political chicanery had become commonplace. Thus the argument was, and remains today, that public financing is the only way to assist a candidate with modest means to aspire to greatness in the political arena.

I don't buy it, no pun intended. I agree, as I assume the vast majority of our readers and Americans in general do, that money has indeed become a corrupting influence in the political realm. And the fact that Barack Obama raised more than half a billion dollars to compete for a job that pays $400,000.00 a year raises the simple question, "Why?"Our system has been co-opted by special interests, to be sure, and the money is the driving force. But it's relevant to note that, according to the New York Times and Fox News (organizations that don't often find themselves in agreement, editorially speaking), the average donation to the Obama campaign was less than $90.00.

The most money raised in any political campaign in history, and the average donor gave ninety bucks. Do the math. It's clear that, in spite of our cynicism and anger over how lobbyists, corporations, unions and radicals on the right and left have dominated the money grubbing and media hype, the common man and woman still care enough to fork over a few bucks to support a cause.That's democracy in action, the little person stepping up to help the candidate who best represents his or her values, beliefs and interests on the national level. But that citizen, passionate for a candidate or a cause, has no control over how the federal government doles out his or her tax dollars to presidential aspirants. In other words, your taxes may be going into the campaign coffers of a candidate you find totally repugnant.

I know I don't like that. I assume you don't either. But I also don't like the system the way it is, or was, where money drives politicians to say anything it takes to get elected, to crawl in bed with whatever special interest has the most umph, and then to claim high moral standards as a reason to earn my vote. So the idea of using tax-payer dollars to fund campaigns was based on noble ideals. But as so often happens in the political realm, the best intentions often produce the worst results.

This is a complicated issue on several fronts. Dating back to the 1970's, challenges to restrictions on fund raising and expenditures in political campaigns have hinged on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Buckley v. Valeo which upheld the notion of restrictions on certain campaign fund raising as "primary weapons against the reality or appearance stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions." However, in the very same ruling, the court recognized the validity of free-speech arguments, stating, "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." Restrictions on this form of free speech, the court said, could only be justified in the case of an overriding governmental interest (see http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley.html.)

In this seemingly contradictory ruling, the court did not spell out what constitutes "overriding governmental interest," but the concern was balancing a group or individual's right to participate in the electoral process with the need to prevent graft and corruption within that process. I submit that this balance, and indeed all the concerns expressed in Buckley and cases brought subsequent to this ruling, can be addressed by common sense regulation of private sector contributions to candidates and parties.

I would accomplish this by instituting two major reforms to the current system which I believe would render public financing unnecessary. First, Congress should enact legislation that prevents a candidate for federal office from soliciting or accepting contributions for his or her campaign for a period of time equal to half the term of the office sought. In other words, a candidate for the office of president, which carries a four-year term, could not officially form a campaign committee or raise and spend outside contributions until two years prior to the general election. This is important because, while we prepare to inaugurate the man we elected this month to serve for the next four years, National Public Radio has reported that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in Iowa, planning his strategy for a 2012 run for the presidency (All Things Considered, November 22.)

Nothing in the legislation would impede a potential future candidate such as Governor Huckabee from traveling around making speeches. It would, however, prevent political parties, corporations or wealthy individuals from contributing to a campaign fund in the candidate's name.

The second and equally important aspect of this reform would identify, once and for all, who may or may not contribute to national candidates and how much that candidate can lawfully raise. An individual's campaign would be allowed to raise no more than ten times the amount of the salary paid by the office aspired to during the course of one term. In other words, a candidate aspiring to attain the presidency, and its $400,000.00 annual salary, could raise and spend no more than $16 million. That money could be raised through donations from individuals not to exceed $2000.00, or corporations, unions, or parties not to exceed $50,000.00.

While these sums may seem paltry compared to the massive amounts of money currently spent on national campaigns, a shortened political season would mean less money would be necessary. Such a system as proposed would also serve to level the playing field for third-party candidates, or those with less name recognition.

There is one argument that public-finance proponents offer that would not be addressed under a system such as I propose. That is the notion that unheralded candidates with modest financial means and no name recognition could not compete. I would submit this argument is flawed for two reasons. One, it is false on its face. Raise your hand if you had ever heard of Ron Paul before the Republican debates first aired. Very few hands in the air. But the Texas Congressman set a single day financing record, raking in more that a million dollars over the Internet after his first debate performance.

Secondly, a young state senator from Illinois, from a very modest background and without a war chest, went from virtual unknown to President-elect in four years due to nothing more than his eloquence and perseverance. Proof positive that gifts of style and substance can overcome, at least in the short term, a lack of money or power.

In closing, I believe we can all agree that our political system, with its reliance on massive amounts of money and influence, is broken. The answer lies not in turning the system over to the government, or by completely deregulating the system. As is often the case when things are complicated beyond the capability of most citizens to understand, we should strive to simplify this system while relying on citizen participation, not taxpayer funding, to select our leaders.

Reed: Electoral College has Outlived its Usefulness

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Let me begin by asking you to please spread the word that Butt and ReButt is back, and we want to be a strong force for reasonable, intelligent discussion and debate. So if your friends are not reasonable and intelligent, well......

At any rate, our topic this week regards the Electoral College. I won't do a John McCain here and say, "I bet you've never heard of that" because I know you have. And Dano has given us a very good primer on the history of the college, so I will argue, based on our coin toss, why the Electoral College is not only no longer necessary, but actually detrimental to our democratic process, and should be replaced by a national popular vote.

My grandmother, God rest her soul, loved Richard Nixon because she believed he had "an honest face." I'm confident not many who remember that heavy brow and five-o'clock shadow would agree. But beauty, talent and ability are indeed in the eyes of the beholder - in the case of presidential candidates, the voter. But voters in America, since Article II, Section One of the Constitution was adopted, have been casting their ballots not for president, but for electors.

That system was developed based on a variety of problems faced by the Founding Fathers (note: there were no founding mothers.) According to William Kimberling, a Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission Office of Election Administration, the founders were dealing with a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small states jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government,
  


• contained only 4 million people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable),
  


• believed, based on the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  


• felt that "gentlemen" should not campaign for public office (The saying was, "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.") (Please note the web site of Federal Election Commission).
  

In the late 18th century, these might have been valid arguments for creating such a system as the Electoral College. But those arguments carry no validity today and for that reason, the system as it stands should be abolished.

This is not to say that individual states no longer jealously guard their rights. Citizens of each state own the right to elect their local and state leaders, and choose who they send to represent them on the national level in Congress. But, were it not applicable prior to 1865, certainly the outcome of the Civil War demonstrated that the union of the American states, and the federal government elected to represent that union, was and is the engine that drives our standing in a world that grows smaller every day.

We are now connected, by transportation and communication, not only between village and city, but state to state and nation to nation. Our population is no longer waiting in anticipation for the elite, more educated leaders of the community to report back from the halls of government as to what is best for our nation. Citizens, on an individual basis, are now expected to not only know what is happening within those halls, but to control them through the exercise of selecting our representatives in all branches of government.

Not only that, but federal law now trumps state law in almost every conceivable situation in which the two might clash. Therefore, each American deserves an equal say in who represents him or her on a national level. And the design of the Electoral College prevents this equality.

Consider the following: Activists and campaign volunteers, both Republican and Democrat, have stressed to potential voters that, no matter what your status in life, your vote counts just as much as that of anyone else. Were it only true. But based on the 2000 Census, and the Electoral College's allocation based on population, an individual voter in Wyoming carries approximately four times as much weight as a voter in California. This makes one wonder what is really the value in the concept of "one person, one vote."

The answer is, where presidential elections are concerned, the concept is false. Our current election race offers a prime example. Michigan, considered a "swing state" due to its high population, has been "written off" by the McCain campaign because, based on the opinion of McCain's handlers and the media pundits, Michigan is "unwinnable." So Senator McCain has pulled all of his campaign staff from Michigan to concentrate on other "swing states" such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In other words, the voters of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will decide the presidential election for the entire country, and the voters of Michigan have now been informed that, for all intents and purposes, their votes don't matter and they can stay home. More importantly, the pundits will be calling the election before the polls even close in our nation's most populous state, thus rendering California's citizens' votes meaningless, since the Republicans will have conceded that state based on its electors' Democratic tendencies.

There have been many anomalies in Presidential elections throughout our history, most of which would have been avoided through a true popular vote. In 1836, one party, the Whigs, ran three different candidates in three separate sections of the country. The purpose was to ensure a Whig majority in the Electoral College by appealing to the particular desires of each demographic. The plan was foiled when the electors chose Democratic-Republican candidate Martin Van Buren by absolute majority - but the electors themselves found Van Buren's Vice-Presidential candidate so objectionable that they failed to vote for him. Thus it was left to the Senate to make the determination, and it chose Richard Johnson, the running mate, as Vice President.

The means through which our electors vote today do not necessarily preclude such a bizarre scenario from reoccurring. It is possible that an Electoral College could select Barack Obama, but refuse to recognize Joe Biden, thus turning the election of a Vice-President to the Senate. Such a scenario would certainly render the President impotent, because in our party system (which the founders were trying to avoid), the candidate's first and most telling decision is that of a running mate.

There are a number of reasons to believe that this system should be scrapped, but the most important is its inability to accurately reflect the will of the American people. This argument was made by Republicans in 1992 when the party noted that Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, but was a clear winner in the Electoral College. And it is true he did not win the majority of votes - but he won more popular votes than either George H.W. Bush or Ross Perot, thus claiming a clear victory under the most "democratic" of principles.

The 2000 election also produced a winner who did not garnish the majority of the popular vote. The contrast, and the most telling reason why the current system should be abolished, is that the declared winner, George W. Bush, did not even win the most votes. Democrat Al Gore, according to the FEC, won over 500,000 more popular votes than did our current President (see FEC/GOV/2000). It will be left for history to decide how this travesty has affected our nation and our world.

In conclusion, I would submit that, in spite of our Constitution's creation of a republican form of government, an amendment allowing a democratically-elected President is now imperative. The President of the United States is, at least for now, the most powerful person on earth. If we desire to maintain our status as a leader in world that has evolved in startling fashion since our founding, we must allow our peoples' voice to be heard over that of outdated, unworkable tradition. One voice must carry the same weight as any other, and one vote must count as much in Kentucky as it does in Florida. Our people must elect our President.

Dano: Keep the Electoral College System...It's What the Founders Wanted

Okay, folks. Following a lengthy time during which I didn't feel I could do justice to the debates because of my head injuries, I'm getting back into it. While things are still difficult, I think I can function well enough, now, to give this a shot.

This week, the coin-flip says I argue for maintaining the Electoral College system for presidential and vice-presidential elections.


The "Problem" with the Electoral College

So, what is the big stink? Why are we asking this week's question?

While Reed will likely bring up other issues, the most prevalent complaint is simple. Under the Electoral College system, it is entirely possible for the majority of voters to vote for one party's candidates, and the other party's candidates to win the election. How? Easy.

Let's say that the eleven states with the highest number of electoral votes all vote for the Democratic candidates. These states and their numbers of electoral votes are: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). Their combined electoral votes equal 271, a sufficient number to win the presidency/vice presidency. But, remember, even in these states, the votes might have been very close; each state may have chosen the winners based upon a bare majority of the popular vote. If every other state in the country, either by a simple majority or an overwhelming majority, voted for the Republican ticket, the total collective nationwide popular vote would be overwhelmingly for the Republican ticket, but the electoral votes of the largest eleven states would have put the Democrats into office. We recently had a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral vote, and thus, a controversial outcome. This was only the third time in our country's history that such a mismatch occurred, but it was so distressing to a great many voters that it may have been the most important wonky election result ever.

Many will recall the 2000 election, wherein George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, but Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 543,000 votes nationwide. Bush did not win via an electoral majority based upon the aforementioned largest eleven states, but won via a simple majority of the electoral vote from all states. The noted official count of the popular votes is independent of the Florida recount question (where many believe that Gore won more of the Florida vote than was actually counted). In other words, even after the official recounts were completed, Gore still had the advantage in popular votes. Many Americans who believe that the popular vote should have mattered in the election outcome have since been vocal opponents of the Electoral College system, whether they opposed it before the election or not. The crux of the issue for these folks, I believe, is the relative importance of the will of the people in choosing our highest elected officials. To be fair, neither candidate in 2000 won a majority of the popular vote (Gore, 48.38%, Bush, 47.87%), but Gore did have more of the popular vote. How could it be okay for more voters to select one party's ticket, and the electoral system to select the other? While I appreciate fairness as much as the next voter, my answer may anger some readers.

The Electoral College is The Best Solution

My primary argument in favor of the Electoral College centers around two things: 1) my own belief that average people don't necessarily make good voters, and 2) the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, and they were really, really smart people.

My own beliefs, first. I don't know exactly how or when I developed my views on this issue, but I feel them pretty strongly. I have long been annoyed by campaigns to "get out the vote" because my sense is that people who are politically engaged - those who care about things political - are already registered voters. For instance, if you care enough about what happens in the halls of Congress to exercise your singular voting power to affect legislation, would you not already be an active voter? To be sure, everyone's concerns about political things are proportionate to the amount of political activity that affects their interests. If you are an investor in the stock market, you are more likely to be concerned about legislative actions that affect the value of your investments on Wall Street than would be a non-investor. If you are a property owner, you are more likely to vote on a local referendum on property taxes than would be a renter. From this standpoint, many non-registered citizens are either not aware of the impacts of lawmakers or leaders on their lives, or there are insufficient concerns for them to get involved and to actually vote.

In all candor, I don't care nearly as much about local elections as I do national ones. But I did when I owned a business, here. At that point, I had concerns relative to the health and welfare of my retail store, my employees' job stability, my own administrative load, and my financial exposure due to business costs, taxes, and other such things. When there would arise a local concern about sales tax increases, it mattered to me. When the local city and county governments talked about consolidation that would affect police services, fire services, EMT services, costs of licensure, tax rates, and other issues, it mattered to me. But I no longer own a business, and I don't currently pay property taxes. In short, there are not a lot of local issues that directly affect me greatly, though I try to stay apprised of those issues that might. Nonetheless, because of my lack of vested interests in local issues, I tend not to vote in local elections as consistently as I do national ones.

The same things can be said about some citizens who do not register to vote, and/or don't ever participate in national elections. Perhaps they are unconcerned about whether there is welfare reform, or whether we allow illegal migrant workers to become citizens in some way, or whether taxes for people above the poverty line go up or down. Maybe some of them get lots of help from the government, with community health clinics and with unemployment benefits for six months whenever they might need them. Maybe they even rationalize that, regardless of their concerns, their one little solitary vote won't count in the scheme of things. In each of these cases, there is a lack of sufficient concern about their ability to have an important impact on political happenings to make them educate themselves about candidates or issues. This lack of education, and the associated lack of concern, is (I believe) at the root of voter apathy in this country. But is it really smart, or even okay, for such uninvolved and uneducated people to register and subsequently vote for a candidate based solely upon some unimportant characteristics of the individual candidate, or upon the quasi-authority they personally assign to a preferred commentator or their chosen TV news channel? Voting without a thorough understanding of at least some of the relevant issues, and at least a cursory understanding of the political platform of the candidates, is neither okay nor desirable. Voting for Barack Obama because he's the first viable African American candidate, or for John McCain because he was a POW and he chose a really cute running mate that winks at you through your TV screen is not okay. Voting for the Democratic ticket because Keith Olbermann doesn't like Rush Limbaugh, or for the Republicans because you thought Bill Clinton was an adulterous scoundrel is not okay. Put simply, don't vote if you don't care or if you don't understand the substantive differences between the candidates and/or the issues.

Why be concerned about how many people vote? Primarily, candidates feel that the more people of their party they register to vote, the greater their total number of collective votes will be. Assuming there is no "close call" in a given state, having the majority of votes will gain you the electoral votes you want. Moreover, regardless of winning via electoral majority, if candidates get more than 50% of the popular vote, they feel they have a public "mandate" to push forward their platform promises. So, the way things are, popular vote numbers still matter under the Electoral College system. For pragmatic reasons if not others, politicians don't seem to care about whether their voters are well-involved political students. Nonetheless, this concern about voters being thoughtful and well-informed, if not having a vested interest in political outcomes, is not just unique to me. In fact, it was at the very heart of the development of the Electoral College system. Read on.

The Founding Fathers' Intentions


Whenever a question comes up about the meaning of a loosely constructed or vague Constitutional provision, legal and political scholars often seek the guidance of other historical documents to decipher the intent of our Founding Fathers. What were they thinking? Why did they write it this particular way? One of the most instructive sources of their intent is the body of essays known as the Federalist Papers, written by many of the most preeminent statesmen of the day prior to our Independence. Many would suggest that the Federalist Papers were, in fact, sort of a first draft of the U.S. Constitution. The unique characteristic of these essays is that they are more like a thought diary, or the closest thing we have to a transcript of their debates on important issues that would later become Constitutional provisions.

The genesis of the Electoral College system, and, more specifically, the Founders' intentions with regard to the system of voting for our highest Federal leaders, is clearly illustrated in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist No. 68, authored largely by Alexander Hamilton, explains why the Founders wanted a group of electors to vote on behalf of the population, rather than counting on the citizens through a tally of their personal votes. Within their language, I find an uncanny similarity to my own personal belief about voters needing to be educated and involved before voting. The following language is from Federalist No. 68, although I have added the italics to sections that are particularly salient:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so an important trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

 It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

See http://federalistpapers.com/federalist68.html for more details.

Clearly, the Founders were concerned that only qualified people actually vote for our highest leaders. Suggesting that a "small number" of people, "most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations," clearly reflects their desire that actual voters for president and vice president be uniquely qualified to make these important decisions - the clear implication being that average citizens (the "general mass") were not. While the "general mass" of today is a whole lot better educated generally than were the masses in our Founders' day, the apathetic voter of today is just as dangerous as the unqualified voters were then.

The Founders reckoned that the best way to insure that the actual votes being cast were done by thoughtful and qualified persons was to form what would later be known as the Electoral College, the body of proxies that would vote on behalf of the less-than-qualified average citizens. Nonetheless, they regarded the popular vote as important enough to be taken into account by the electors. And changes to the Constitution as well as state election laws have made the system, while not perfect, more fair today than ever before. It is simply a rarity, as in the 2000 election, that the popular vote majority does not end up choosing the winning presidential ticket.

Other Benefits of the Electoral College

Philosophical considerations aside, there are other important advantages inherent in the Electoral College system. I'll list a couple below, but there are many more. See http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php for more information.

One additional and important benefit is that the Electoral College eliminates the detrimental effects of disparities between voter turnout in various states. For instance, if November 4th finds the bulk of the country enjoying fair weather, but the New England states buried in eight feet of snow (which therefore prevents large numbers of Northern voters from getting to the polls), the states adversely affected still have their appointed numbers of electoral votes. In other words, even in a case where only 15% of voters can vote, so long as the proportional differences between the numbers of Democratic votes and Republican votes remains relatively constant within, say, Connecticut, that state will still have it's full number of allotted electoral votes. Imagine the detrimental affect, however, if we used a popular vote total, instead. Suddenly, the bad weather in traditionally Democratic Connecticut might unfairly compromise the Democrats nationally, because the solidly Republican central plains states see high voter turnout because their weather is pleasant. Under the Electoral College system, Connecticut still gets their seven electoral votes - even with only 15% voter turnout. Iowa, which may have had 60% voter turnout under good weather conditions, also only gets its seven allotted electoral votes. So the Electoral College manages to even out voter turnout differences while maintaining dependence on the popular vote within each state.

Another benefit of the Electoral College is that it isolates each state from all the others, and, therefore, isolates election problems as well. In other words, because the current system means that every state chooses its own rules and methods for generating the final state electoral tally, it is far easier to identify irregularities in voting infrastructure (think "hanging chad" from election 2000). Recounts necessitated by voting anomalies within a single state are more efficient than a nationwide recount in such a circumstance.

So, in the final analysis, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Electoral College system. Except in the rarest of cases, the power of individual votes still determines how the citizens of each state collectively vote for president and vice president. The advantages of the system are several-fold, but the fact that the College satisfies the Founding Fathers' desire that voters be educated, discerning, and interested persons is of the highest importance.

Dano: The Flat Tax is Fair, Necessary

This week, Reed and I are discussing the flat tax concept for tax reform. I am arguing in favor of a flat tax. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you that I cannot locate an "objective" web site that argues either for or against a flat tax. This is because, in modern politics, flat tax proposals are almost always championed by Republicans, and criticized as either unfair, unworkable, or irresponsible by Democrats. Even sources that are typically fairly neutral on most policy issues seem to show their conservative/liberal biases on this topic. To locate the reasons that a flat tax is good, therefore, it was necessary to consult fairly conservative sources - I chose The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/tax71.html#1). There were many more, but they almost all agree on the features of a flat tax system, so I chose these two for their fairly well-laid-out approach. Most of what follows, therefore, comes from these sources. I suspect that Reed will have had to do the opposite to argue against the flat tax.

Many people don't know what a flat tax is, so I'll give just a brief description. The truest form of flat tax is one that taxes everyone and every business at the same, fixed rate; usually, there are no deductions or exemptions in such systems. A single mother of four making $18,000 a year would pay the same percentage of her income as would someone making $500,000 a year with no children to support. This is patently a bad idea, because it burdens the poor disproportionately. Why? Because each dollar of a poor person's income is worth more to them than each dollar of a wealthy person's income. This is why our current tax system is graduated such that as a person's income increases, the rate at which each additional dollar (within given brackets) is taxed increases.

Assume a flat tax rate of 17%. The $3060 tax burden on the single mother is a more critical insult to the single mother's (and her children's) welfare than the $85,000 tax bill is for the half-million dollar earner with no kids. Because of this inequity, no serious flat tax proposals are true flat taxes - instead, they incorporate an income threshold below which there is one flat tax rate, 0%, and above which there is another flat rate, usually something under 20%. They also provide personal exemptions and exemptions for number of dependents. In such a system, with a taxable income threshold of $30,000 and the dependent exemptions, the aforementioned single mother would pay no income tax, while the wealthier worker with no children would pay the 20% flat rate. In this way, such a flat tax is progressive, or graduated, though it could be argued that there is still only one tax rate, and that those below the income threshold (or who have enough exemptions) simply aren't subject to the tax system. In any case, no serious proposals eschew the minimum taxable income "loophole."

The benefits of a flat tax are many. The most obvious benefit is simplicity. Our current tax code is some nine million words in length, and there are between eight and nine hundred forms necessary to deal with all of the exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions and other complexities. More than 80% of the tax code deals with these issues. Under a flat tax, there would be two forms - one for individuals, and one for businesses. Both these forms would be so simple they could be placed on a post card (see, e.g., http://www.cse.org/flattax/index.php).

A related benefit, one that represents an almost immediate increase in personal and business wealth, is the money that would be saved by this simplification of the code. It has been calculated that Americans spend around $600 billion per year on income tax compliance; they feel compelled to hire tax accountants and lawyers and financial analysts to help navigate through the IRS rules. This expenditure would be unnecessary under a flat tax.

But there are more goodies. Without going into exhaustive detail, the following are several of the other beneficial features of a flat tax system:

• No double taxation or asset taxation. The flat tax system taxes only income, and only when it is first earned. Unlike the current system, it does not tax savings, capital gains, interest income, or dividends. There is no death tax, either. Because of this feature, a flat tax would instantly increase the value of assets held by Americans.

• Less IRS intrusion. Under a flat tax, the IRS has no need to know what your assets and liabilities are - just income. Because of the lack of deductions, exclusions, loopholes, and related audits, the IRS can be simplified and downsized, further saving Americans' tax dollars.

• Increased global competitiveness. The current tax structure makes the U.S. one of the world's most expensive nations in which to do business. It is therefore attractive to migrate jobs and capital to countries with lower tax rates. A flat tax system, with a much lower tax rate, would eliminate this incentive to leave our shores, and would actually make the U.S. a more attractive operating arena for foreign owned companies as well. This is because the flat tax is based on "territorial taxation," meaning that only income earned within our borders is taxed. Eliminating "worldwide taxation" should make the U.S. much more competitive on the world economic playing field.
  

• No marriage penalty. The flat tax would apply to all earners, so both a husband and wife would get taxed at the same flat rate. It would no longer be possible for one spouse's income to push the couple into a higher tax bracket. Moreover, because a married couple's family-based allowance is twice as high as a single person's, there would be no penalty for being married and filing jointly.

• Reduction in political corruption. Much of what lobbyists and special interest groups do in the halls of Congress has to do with currying favor with regard to tax breaks and other loopholes. Under a flat tax, because of the lack of exemptions and exclusions, politicians would no longer be able to engage in the corrupt practice of trading favors with big business. This would greatly reduce corruption, but would also save corporations the immense cost of lobbyists and, thus, aid in business growth.

Fundamentally, the current Revenue Code is so complex and so flawed that some kind of tax reform is both desirable and necessary - particularly in light of the fact that world governments are jumping on the flat tax bandwagon in droves. The former communist nations in Eastern Europe have almost all adopted a flat tax system, and have achieved remarkable economic gains.

Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) has the most promising flat tax proposal here at home, and it has garnered the most support in Washington (http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba136.html). While it is unlikely to pass under a Democratically-controlled Congress, Democrats would be wise to give more attention to the concept of the flat tax. Because it taxes all earners at one flat rate, but gives valuable and necessary income threshold exemptions to the poorest taxpayers, it is ultimately fair. Moreover, in the increasingly competitive global marketplace, America cannot continue to maintain a tax system that provides disincentives for businesses, jobs, and capital to remain within our borders.