In his book “Republic, Lost … How money corrupts Congress – and a plan to stop it”, Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig mentioned in passing a ingeniously simple way of achieving reform set forth by Yale professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers.
At a time when people voted in public, it was common for politicians to buy their votes. But when secret voting became required in the twentieth century, it put an end to that practice for all practical purposes.
In “Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance”, Ackerman/Ayers suggest that all donations be made anonymously, broken into smaller amounts when transferred to the candidates, and, as a double precaution, the donors have the right to withdraw the contributions within a certain number of days. Thus candidates would never know from whom their funding was coming and, even if they had an idea, they would not be certain that the funds had not been withdrawn.
The funds would come from those who desire to support a candidate and / or a party. If need be, the government could supply a reasonable amount for major candidates to fund a campaign. To reduce the need for heavy expenditures, political add campaigns could be restricted to say 60 days before an election as some other nations do.
Lessig contends: “The mechanics are too complex; the sources of suspicion are too great.” He also considers it unlikely that lobbyists would not resist and legislatures with future aspiration of a high paying lobbying job would vote for such reform.
We are not convinced that the approach would not work. Importantly, it may well be permitted by the Supreme Court since it does not restrict freedom of speech.
In any case, every rebuffed attempt can build greater public support until a constitutional congress becomes a popular approach. Faced with such a possibility, resistance to legislation may subside and meaningful, if not perfect, reforms might be enacted.
