Ideas are not set in stone.  When exposed to thoughtful people, they morph and adapt into their most potent form.

~Charlie Todd, Improv Everywhere

As we get closer to the 2108 mid-term elections and Democrats choose congressional candidates during the ongoing primary season, political pundits are looking for sea walls which might turn back a potential blue tsunami.  Progressives despair that a pro-life candidate in rural America will cost them the “right to choose” base.  And moderate Democrats fear the selection of a 28 year old democratic socialist in Queens is giving the Republicans their next “be afraid” target.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Congressional and, to a lesser extent, senatorial campaigns are local.  New Yorkers voting for an uber progressive does not mean Kansas Democrats will not turn out for a pro-life former female fighter pilot.  More importantly, to return to “the regular order,” diversity of positions within one of the two major political parties is exactly what the doctor recommended.  When you demand ideological purity, you do not get Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.  You get bad ideas such as zero tolerance, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest, tariffs. denial of science and moral ambiguity.

Even if the current Republican House and Senate leadership allowed hearings and votes on the pressing issues of the day there is evidence the ensuing debate would not result in compromise and accommodation of legitimate differences of opinions.  The primary reason?  Republican legislators have outright admitted they look to Donald Trump for their cues.  And for fear of alienating Trump’s hold on the GOP base, they dare not challenge their leader.  Regardless of personal points of view, they have chosen to fall in line.

This failure by Republicans to engage in substantive debate is a major opportunity for Democrats if only they have the wisdom and will to grab hold of it.  Consider the following.  Upon re-taking the leadership in either chamber of Congress, Democrats announce they will make committee assignments which ensure that the range of opinions within the party are represented.  And if the Republicans choose to use their time to attack witnesses and spew vitriol, so be it.  Democrats should ignore them and use their turns to address facts and options.

However, for those discussions to achieve their full potential the participants must bring diverse perspectives to the table.  Members who believe the second amendment is outdated and those who defend it as an inherent right.  Those who think free trade helps America prosper and those who presume it costs American jobs.  Colleagues on each point along the continuum of security versus privacy.  Democrats must accept the premise there is room in the party for candidates with all these views as long as they agree the outcomes must be consistent with the promise of America so well articulated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

As Charlie Todd reminds us,  the “most potent form” of any concept comes not from ideologues or lemmings, but from thoughtful people who are not afraid to debate opponents on the merits of an issue and who all agree pursuit of better answers is the ultimate goal.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Some believe our government is out of control because our politics lack discipline, the leading culprit being Citizens United v. FEC that opened the floodgates for unlimited campaign contributions from corporations, special interest groups and wealthy individuals.  But in the Deprogramming101 world of counter-intuitive thinking, one can argue our political environment is out of whack because it functions on the same principles as our government.  The issue is not contributions (revenues in public sector speak), but expenditures.

The United States faces growing deficits and ever mounting debt because, despite de jure congressional control over borrowing, the fear of a global economic Armageddon if America welshes on its financial obligations ensures this power to control the federal purse strings will likely NEVER be invoked.  Therefore, fiscal discipline is not required.  Lack of revenues is not the core issue.  The true culprit is the absence of a spending cap.

In other words, Citizens United, from an electoral perspective, is the equivalent of a printing press for campaign dollars.  Although a candidate does not have direct control over the use of PAC funds, it does not take a genius for the sponsors/donors of a political action committee to find ways to coordinate message and tactics even without direct communications between the PAC and their chosen candidate.  It is the equivalent of two alcoholics independently advocating for free booze.  No overt or covert planning needed.

To shame elected officials to make more rational budgeting decisions, the process is often compared to the way households manage their finances.  The guiding rule?  Spend only what you take in.  But that is a fallacy.  Just look at the level of personal debt in the United States.  Like their government, most citizens are grossly over-leveraged.  A better analogy would be the spending caps imposed on teams in the NFL, NBA or NHL.

Although not perfect in practice, the theory is solid.  Given a finite amount of resources, who can most efficiently expend capital to build a winning team?  How do the New England Patriots assemble a championship dynasty?  By asking a star player like Tom Brady to take a smaller salary than he might command in the open market in order to surround him with a more talented supporting cast.

So, how might this work in campaigns?  Drop the soft money charade.  Allow campaigns to raise as much money as they want as long as donations are reported in real time (i.e. when they deposited in the campaign bank account) and available for review immediately on line.  But place a cap on spending.

For the sake of argument, let’s make the cap equal to two dollars ($2.00) per resident of the jurisdiction.  According to the 2010 census, the average population of a congressional district was approximately 720,000 residents.  Therefore, a congressional campaign would have a spending cap of $1.44 million.  The limit for a senate race in California would be $78.8 million.  And the campaigns in the next presidential election would be restricted to a total of $700 million.

I know.  Campaign costs are not equal across the country.  So a relative cost factor might need to be applied to the spending base.  But someone has already calculated those differentials.  The General Accounting Office annually produces calculations for reimbursement of travel costs in different regions of the country.  The same factors could be applied to the spending caps.

An added bonus of this system would be the insight voters would have about how candidates manage money.  Questions would not focus on how much a candidate can raise but how wisely he or she spends those dollars.  Did their campaigns allocate funds in the most efficient way to have maximum impact?  While there is no guarantee such discipline would carry over once elected, the campaign becomes practice for what the winner will face once they take office.

Again, I would never pretend campaigns tied to spending caps is a panacea for all that ails America.  But the current system is not working.  As we approach the Fourth of July, maybe we should heed Yankee Doodle and “stick a feather in the CAP.”  Spending cap that is.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP