PA House GOP Leader Offers Gov't Reform Plan

Pennsylvania House Republican leader Sam Smith unveiled a 12-point government reform plan which he calls Pennsylvania’s Agenda for Trust in Harrisburg (PATH).

The proposals are:

1. No staff allowed to campaign during office hours.
   
2. Public officials cannot start nonprofit organizations while in office.
3.  Dollar one reporting of campaign contributions, lobby disclosure and ethics statements.
4. State grant accountability.
5. Searchable database for all state spending.
6. General Assembly audits by independent auditors.
7. Strengthening whistleblower protections.
8. End Pay-to-Play mentality in Pennsylvania by enacting state contracting reform:
9. Banning public official from simultaneously working for a lobbyist firm.
10. Create an Ethical Code of Conduct for executive branch.
11. Strengthen the state Sunshine Law.
12. Limits on state contractors ability to use non-public information for their own gain.

As a package, these reforms seem quite strong, and would be a huge improvement in "business as usual" in Harrisburg.

While I’m not overly excited about additional campaign finance reporting requirements (in fact, I'd be concerned that making every single campaign donation public information would lead to political and social intimidation against donors), some of the other reforms are among those we have recommended. 

We have called for a spending database previously, and ending Pay-to-Play and independent audit of the General Assembly should also rank among the top priorities for government reform.

Do Campaign Finance Laws Authorize Banning Books?

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Astonishingly, Malcom Stewart, deputy solicitor general of the United States, replied in the affirmative "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy."

HT to Insitute for Justice.

Campaign Finance Reform: Fool's Gold

Imagine if George W. Bush would declare that, as part of the war on terrorism, he proposed the Patriot Act II, which would grant the federal government power to collect information on political activity of citizens. Not only would the federal government collect your information, but they would make it publicly available for your employer, colleagues, friends, neighbors, or groups who might protest outside your home. How would the public react?

In a recent video for the Reason Foundation, former FEC head Brad Smith asks this very question - but notes we already have this law on the books, under the guise of "Campaign Finance Reform."



At the Commonwealth Foundation, we have been critical of proposals to limit political contributions and campaign expenditures, or to fund political campaigns with taxpayer money, noting that such limits are a violation of the freedom of speech. The fact that they violate a constitutionally protected right should be reason enough to reject such ideas, but there are more: Campaign finance reforms have failed to deliver the promised results of good government.

Federal campaign finance laws, and similar reforms in other states, have not increased the number of candidates, improved their quality, or made elections more competitive. Corruption in politics is as widespread as ever. What's worse is that campaign finance laws -- crafted by sitting lawmakers -- have tended to benefit the re-election odds of incumbents. So we get the façade of reform without any real reform.

The real problem in government isn't too much money, but too much government. So long as government is allowed to usurp and exercise power beyond its constitutional limits to redistribute wealth, we will always have special interests trying to influence government, and we will never "get money out of politics." The only way to limit the influence of money in politics is to limit the size and role of government.

But an interesting question is whether campaign finance disclosure itself is a good idea. Does disclosing campaign contributors reduce corruption and scandal, or put contributors at risk of facing political pressure and retribution for their donations? We've certainly seen the latter occur.

Cross-Posted at Capital Domes.

How the left and right differ on reform

I was in DC on Monday at a conference hosted by the Brookings Institute on reforming Pennsylvania - yes, our state is so bad that we are a great case study for the rest of the nation. I am pretty certain I am the only member of the vast right-wing conspiracy there. John Baer also has a write-up of the event.

My primary contribution was to note the need to separate good-government reform from specific policy goals, as our reform coalition has done. Brookings original intent was to urge political reform to promote their plan to revitalize Pennsylvania's economy - but their ideas for revitalizing Pennsylvania's economy differ sharply from ours (see our PA Diet Plan) in that they rely on more strategic spending or better planning by government, rather than limiting the size of government, reducing the burden of taxes, and relying on the private sector to drive our economy.

Nonetheless, I learned a few things on how the center-left and center-right groups differ on reform.

Agreement:

• Everyone agrees with the need for Transparency in government. Turns out everyone wants to know what our government is doing - whether we are talking about improving the open records law, putting state contracts and spending online, or auditing the legislative leadership accounts.
• Again most everyone agreed on the need for redistricting reform, and making it a non-partisan commission (as well as opening up that process to the public). There just isn't a lot of trust for legislators drawing their own legislative districts.

Priorities for the Left:

• Campaign finance limits and taxpayer funding of campaigns were a priority of nearly everyone in attendance, save me. I think this difference between the left and the right boils down not to our interpretation of our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech (though clearly there is a difference there), but the views on government vs. the private sector. The left puts its trust in greater government regulation and control, the right in restricting the powers of government. The reason there is so much "money in politics" is because government has too much power to regulate, tax, and control the private sector. Campaign finance restrictions and government funded-campaign won't give power to the people, but take it away.

Fears of the Left:

• Few in attendance we supportive of a Constitutional Convention, or Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. This may seem somewhat surprising, since the left often talks about uses "power to the people" and helping the "little guy," but distrusts popular sentiment. However, the same is true of many on the right. The left fears that a Con-Con or I&R will lead to the defense of marriage amendment or spending limits. The right fears gun control and defining government health insurance as a right.
  
  The Commonwealth Foundation's support is gauged in a limited ConCon (i.e. the Declaration of Rights would be off-limit) and in a more restrictive I and R process - I was able to persuade some folks by noting that we wouldn't want the California model of initiative, but other states such as Colorado (as discussed on The BOX last week) have more effective procedures.
  
  Again, I think the difference goes back to differing philosophies of government - a ConCon and I and R are additional checks on our government, something the right generally supports (except whenever President Bush asks for more executive power) and the left generally opposes (except for checks against the Department of Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and Karl Rove).

The end of "campaign finance reform"?

The Supreme Court was busy yesterday, in its second major ruling, they struck down a portion of McCain Feingold campaign finance restrictions, ruling that the "millionaire exemption" is unconstitutional. The ruling does not overturn past cases, which said governments could restrict campaign finance "to eliminate corruption or the appearance of corruption", but said that limits to "level the playing field" are violations of the First Amendment. Essentially this ruling means "Congress is not allowed to tinker with people's speech rights because it thinks some people are speaking too much, or others not enough." In related news, Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the federal campaign financing may be the final blow for the system, John Samples believes:

Indeed, public financing of campaigns has always been more about partisan politics than the public interest. ... Taxpayers have spent over a billion dollars funding candidates since 1976, with little evidence that they're getting more or better choices than they had before.

Limiting political speech won’t create good government

In the latest Democracy Rising Newsletter, Tim Potts takes on two issues: redistricting and campaign finance. On redistricting I agree with him – we should not let those running for re-election draw the borders of their district – and I have also written on how Cerberus is keeping that reform in limbo.

On campaign finance limits, Potts takes to task Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for vetoing a bill that would offer limits similar to federal election law. I will take Tim to task using the same rhetorical questions manner he favors:

1. Is the federal government free from influence of special interests, thanks to campaign finance restrictions?
2. Does Tim think that limiting political speech will provide for a better informed public, or serve the public in any way?
3. Does Tim really believe that elections would be more competitive with campaign finance limits, even though all the evidence indicates that limits favor incumbents and result in less competitive elections?
4. If campaign finance limits were such a good idea, why does every corrupt politician and big city political machine favor them?

So long as government gives taxpayer handouts to favored businesses, regulates all aspects of the economy, and consumes one-third of personal income in taxes, special interests will always find a way to influence politicians. The only way to "get money out of politics" is to limit the size and role of government.

Big government to blame for out-of-control lobbyists

Amanda Carpenter raises the point that lobbyists, for all their flaws, are not to blame for the corruption in Washington (or Harrisburg), but rather, it is unlimited government that makes lobbying too important.

The same is true of campaign finance laws, designed to "get money out of politics." That lesson should also be applied to the issues of merit selection vs. election of judges, and to elections in general.

Cerberus Responds

Responding to my commentary today, Rep. Babbette Josephs - who I termed the Cerberus of the General Assembly - issued a news release defending her record, and attacking us, calling us a "right-wing, anti-consumer 'think tank'". Let me dissect the response:

• "Right-Wing": I don't really know what "right wing" means, but we get called that a lot. I guess the "left wing" thinks that is a big insult that undermines our credibility, since the merits of our policy research is unassailable.



• "Anti-Consumer": Being called "anti-consumer" seems bizarre. I suppose my metaphor of Cerberus started the name-calling, but I relied on humor and facts. The Commonwealth Foundation has recently called for for consumer choices in health care, liquor, and restaurants, lower prices for consumers through free trade and market prices in labor, and for no new and lower taxes on consumers. I think the words "government control over" were intended to be between "anti" and "consumers."



• Campaign Finance: Yes, I testified against some proposed campaign finance restrictions; those were bad proposals. Obviously my arguments were persuasive. But I would like the other reforms in my commentary to get similar hearings (I don't endorse them all), and allow members (or citizens, in the case of Constitutional Amendments) to vote on them, rather than have them killed by committee chairs.



• Lame-Duck: Rep. Joseph's response notes that they have moved a bill that would ban the lame duck session. Fair enough. Yet the fact that the version they moved (9 months after it was introduced) was not the one already passed by the Senate (10 months ago) might lead someone to believe they are stalling.

As for the other bills mentioned, labeled as "substantive legislation", here is the breakdown:

Substantive Reform, but watered down after numerous delays:

• Open records law (exempts General Assembly, won't go into full effect until 2009)

Somewhat Substantive Reform:

• Prohibit the furlough of Commonwealth employees during budget delays.

Not Substantive Reforms:

• Require General Assembly candidates and political committees to file a second campaign expense report prior to the election.
• Include political robocalls under the state's Do Not Call list.
• Prohibit state investments in countries that sponsor terrorism and genocide.
• Change the date of Pennsylvania's presidential primary.

"reform" to delay Reform

• Authorize a study of the state constitution.

Campaign-Finance Breakdown

John Lott and Bradley Smith in the Wall Street Journal on taxpayer-financing of presidential elections:

Since 1976, taxpayers have shelled out about $3 billion in current dollars to pay for presidential campaigns. That includes campaigns by John Hagelin, Lyndon LaRouche, Lenora Fulani, Ralph Nader, Sen. Alan Cranston, Milton Schaap, Ruben Askew, and other also-rans. Funds have also paid for balloon drops at the party's conventions, negative TV ads, robocalls and more. ...

No one thinks that tax financing has given us better campaigns, or better candidates, or better presidents than we had before taxpayer financing.

Campaign Finance Reform Gone Haywire

This story from the Wall Street Journal (hat tip to Tony Phyrillas) illustrates exactly why campaign donation limits are a meaningless reform.

Unfortunately, this is the same type of contribution limit many legislators support in PA. And when I testified that contribution limits wouldn't clean up state politics, but would make it more difficult to track big donors, I was treated like Michael Vick at a PETA convention.

The Journal id'd a family in California that had given $45,000 to Hillary Clinton since 2005 (and $200,000 to all candidates). This seems high given that federal law limits donations to $2,300 per cycle (primary and general). But that limit is for every individual - even an infant can give up the max.

But in addition to giving in the name of each family member, the WSJ believes that someone else may be funding the donation supposedly coming from the Maw family:

The Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records.

...

In the wake of a 2002 law that set those limits, federal and state regulators and law-enforcement officials said they have seen a spike recently in the number of cases of individuals and companies illegally reimbursing others for campaign donations.

Why Campaign Expenditures are Increasing: The Government is Getting Bigger

Research by John Lott reveals a somewhat obvious explanation to campaign contribution growth, touched on briefly in my testimony. Special interests spend millions to influence government because government is handing out billions to special interests.

While many think that limiting campaign contributions or taxpayer-financed campaigns will reduce the role of special interest - this is simply absurd. Such limits have not gotten special interests out of national politics, but only made it tougher to track. The way to reduce the influence of special interest is to reduce the size of government, pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare, and over-regulation which benefits special interests.

To use a recent quote from Mark Tapscott: You can have Big Government or you can have Open Government. But you can't have both.

Also read Dimitri Vassilaros' column in the Tribune Review on campaign finance reform. He cites our Policy Points on Campaign Finance. Vote in our poll here.

Poll: Campaign Finance

Our first ever Policy Blog poll wants to know what our readers think of proposed campaign finance reform in Pennsylvania.



After answering, check out our Policy Points on Campaign Finance Limits & Public Funding and my testimony on Campaign Finance limits. You can also read coverage of that hearing here, though my entertaining exchange with Representative Freeman is only captured well on PCN

Benefield Testimony on PCN

My testimony on campaign finance limits will be carried live on PCN today. I am scheduled to take the hot seat at 1:30. The hearing will re-air beginning at 7 pm (which means the good looking guy will start speaking at 9:30). From the agenda of those scheduled to testify, it appears I will be the Gloomy Gus of the bunch.

You can also get my written testimony here and read our Policy Points on Campaign Finance Limits and Public Funding here.

Also re-airing on PCN is our roundtable discussion of school choice, beginning at 4:40 pm today.