Any campaign finance reform would have to be comprehensive enough to eliminate the slightest hint of conflict of interest as our elected senators and representatives carry out their sworn duties. The prohibitions against conflict of interest for a corporate board of directors are more stringent than they are for the elected government of the most powerful nation in the world, and it is time for serious, comprehensive, and sweeping reform.
Conflict of interest begins with serving on both sides in a deal. There is no way that senators and representatives should be allowed to vote on a measure as representatives of both the people who vote for them, and as representatives of the benefactors who financed their campaigns, past and future. In addition, the door to employment with campaign benefactors should be sealed for a significant period of time after the elected official leaves office. Five years should be about right.
Conflict of interest is indicated time and time again, when representatives and senators vote against the interests and the clearly identified mandates of the majority of their constituents, and in favor of private interests which finance vacations, trips, meals, and all forms of elaborate gifts in addition to campaign contributions and jobs.
Such representatives and senators should be prohibited on voting on any legislation that enhances the fortunes of documented private benefactors who have been campaign contributors, giving gifts, meeting secretly, contributing to campaigns, or utilizing the services of lobbying professionals to influence voting.
All meetings between elected officials and lobbyists or representatives of corporate, for profit, and other interests than their constituents, should be documented, and there should be transcripts or summaries of the meetings. The details of such activity should no longer be withheld or concealed from the public view or review. Public view and review would reduce the ability of lobbyists and non constituents to go beyond campaign financing in influencing our legislative decision making process.
Conflict of interest is inherent in the coordination of efforts by well financed private interests who purchase advertising which attacks a candidate or political party platform. The responding candidates and parties must then divert funds from normal campaign advertising in order to deal with the attacks. The well financed private interests include organizations that spring up to engage in political campaign strategy that is disguised as grassroots political activism, as well as other political operatives who clearly are engaged in sabotaging one side or another.
The "equal time" provisions of the law should be enhanced to allow the candidate who is the subject of such "attack ads" an equivalent amount of time to respond, uninterrupted, to the allegations that are presented in the advertising.
Well funded "attack ads" have the chilling effect of allowing massive funding for the last-minute dissemination of possibly false and defamatory information that is broadcast with the clear understanding that, since the official candidate is limited in emergency fund raising ability, there will be no fairness in allowing a defense or correction of the allegations. The process of massive financing of bogus "grassroots" organizations has the effect of bypassing existing laws which limit campaign contributions to candidates, while allowing unlimited funding for political counter campaigning under other guises.
Just as there is a legal prohibition against campaigning within a certain distance of polls on voting day, there should be a moratorium on any campaign advertising that begins at a set date before any election and continues until after the election results are counted and certified. Recently, it has not necessarily been the candidates, themselves who engage in such activity, as much as it has been corporate, political, and special interests who finance the last minute attacks in order to influence election outcomes. Just before an election is no time to do the detailed investigation required to identify the funding sources, the truth about information that has been released, or even the legality of the activity.
A period of no advertising would eliminate the last minute false, libelous, unproven and defamatory effect of allegations that cannot be responded to in time for correcting the record. It has been illegal for prosecutions or defenses to spring evidence at the last minute in order to influence a court or jury. It should be equally illegal for campaigns to spring well funded, last minute allegations and attacks that cannot be examined or disproved in time for the voters to come to their own conclusions about a matter that affects the election of our national government.
Virtually half of a campaign budget is expended on various forms of media, from wasteful print advertising, signage, and mass mailings, to television and radio advertising. But there are so many loopholes to the "equal time" laws that low cost publicity is a sign of times gone by. There is no way to compel commercial broadcasters to give up income from regular programming that is paid for by advertising, just as there is no way to compel format broadcasters to change their formats without some form of compensation for the loss of advertising revenue.
The excess of campaign funds that are raised, however, is another issue. There should be a requirement to dispose of those excess funds in ways that do not benefit the elected official or the sponsoring political party in any future campaign or in any personal way, whatsoever. This would be a disincentive to taking more money than is necessary for a campaign, and would cut off the back door that is open to influence peddlers who serve to override the will or the best interests of the constituents by giving money to their representative in government.
The critical need for campaign finance and lobbying reform is evidenced in the increasing public awareness and perception that our elected officials are operating under a dysfunctional and corrupt system which favors those who can arrogantly, secretly, and obviously influence legislation without any effective review or oversight by either the public or by the government, itself.
When there is the slightest hint of conflict of interest that is based on ability to pay, serving on both sides in a deal, and influence peddling through gifts, excessive campaign contributions, and other perks, then there is more than the slightest hint that our elected government is not stable, sound, or whole.