E Pluribus Unum

From Carville & Begala:

As any average person will tell you, the heart of the problem [of corruption in politics] is that elected officials take money from interested parties.

Whether it's technically legal or not, accepting money as a public servant is a form of bribery, and it serves to fundamentally corrupt democracy.

We don't let cops, customs agents, or federal judges take money from the people they're serving. We should hold elected officials to the same standards. They should be out of the fundraising business altogether.

And, with that, the bad boys from Texas and Louisiana lay out a sweeping, radical plan to remove the corrosive effects of money from politics.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking -- we tried it before. It doesn't work.

But listen up: if nothing else, you should read their piece because you might learn something about how the system really works, not how the civics books explain it.

Here's the PowerPoint outline:

• First, raise congressional pay big time.

• In return, Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

• When it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. No nothing.

• Challengers would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits -- as long as they report it electronically, within 24 hours, with full public access to the info.

• Almost every cent raised by the challenger would also be granted to the incumbent -- by the US Treasury.

• Similarly, if an incumbent wants to use his own money, fine. An equal amount will be granted to his challenger -- by the US Treasury.

• If a sitting congressman wants to run for senator, or a senator wants to run for president, they would be allowed to raise funds -- once they have resigned their seat.

• Penalties for violating this system would be swift and awful: Incumbents would be thrown out of office and challengers would be eliminated from running.

There's more:

Today more than 90 percent of all senators and representatives are re-elected. Under current law, incumbents almost always have a huge money advantage.

Our wager is that a majority of incumbents would be willing to give up that advantage in exchange for higher pay and no time spent fundraising.

Think about it. Not only would they be bringing in a much larger salary, they'd also never have to kiss up to another rich donor. You should never underestimate how much these folks hate spending half their time—or more—sniveling for money. Nor should you underestimate how damaging and distorting it is to require federal office holders to spend that time raising money. No wonder they vote on so much legislation without ever reading it.

And what about the public? We haven't seen the final data for 2004, but in all the federal races in 2000—congressional, senatorial, and presidential—candidates spent a total of $1.6 billion. Half of that, which is what taxpayers would have had to shell out under our plan, would be a lot of money: $800 million.

But that is nothing compared to what the current system costs us.

Those special interests who pour money into politicians' campaigns get something in return. Actually, they get a lot in return. Special tax breaks, special loopholes, special funding of pork-barrel projects, maybe even a no-bid contract or two. The energy bill passed in 2005 handed $2 billion in subsidies to the ethanol industry—you know, the fine folks at Archer Daniels Midland. It gave the makers of the controversial fuel additive MTBE another $2 billion. And another $8.1 billion in tax breaks for oil, coal, and electric utilities. In all, that one bill cost you $80.8 billion.

All of a sudden $800 million—one percent of the cost of one bill—doesn't seem like very much money, does it?

Carville & Begala admit that the plan is not perfect. And, of course, it stands zero chance of being implemented simply because of a fundamental conflict of interest: the incumbents would be the ones voting on it and if there is anything those guys hate, it's change in the status quo.

But it's a fascinating idea, not the least because it gives you a pretty good idea of how things really are, not the way we wish them to be.