This is a good post by Ari Melber on the need for campaign finance reform, but particularly worth watching is his appearance on MSNBC (embedded at the link). Watch how the host asks him to comment on which Democrats can raise the money, and how Ari smoothly moves the conversation over to the issue of money in politics. A brave attempt to elevate the discourse. If you want to think seriously about campaign finance reform, though, Mark Schmitt's latest article in Democracy should be your next stop.
Mark basically comes down on the side of small donor enhancement strategies, wherein small-sum contributions get matched by public funds at many multiples of their original amount. "[This gives] small donors the same opportunity to express the intensity of their preferences as large donors," Mark writes. "Don't build complex systems that put government in the position of trying to equalize all resources or ban all contributions. Instead, let voters shape the process through their own preferences, through organizing to enhance their power, and by using public funds to echo and enhance the preferences of ordinary citizens. Avenues by which large contributions influence politics will remain, whether they take the form of PACs, 527 committees, other nonprofits, or blogs. The best we can do is to offset their influence by broadening the range of voices that can be heard, as opposed to enhancing their influence by closing off other channels of money." That seems right. I think McCain-Feingold's aftermath suggests that we should fear the unintended consequences of complicated reforms, and simpler approaches, like enhancement strategies, may really be best.
