Yesterday, a group called Reboot released a poll on young Americans’ religiosity. My organization, CIRCLE, was a major funder of the survey, which contains numerous fascinating results. In my usual way, I refer you to the study itself for the main findings; here I present some data that just happened to interest me.

Continue reading →

As most American readers know by now, the New York Times reported last week that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has paid $500,000 of his campaign money to his wife and daughter since 2001. DeLay responded angrily to the Times report, noting that other Members of Congress (including two prominent Democrats) have also put relatives on their campaign payrolls. He accused the Times of personally attacking him for ideological reasons.

Indeed, the DeLay case is symptomatic of a broader, bipartisan problem (although that does not excuse the Majority Leader, whose half-a-million-dollar payment dwarfed the other nepotistic arrangements cited in the press). Congress has closed most opportunities to give things of value to elected officials, on the ground that donors might use gifts to buy influence. Under the Buckley v Valeo Supreme Court decision, we don’t have a constitutional right to give money to politicians. However, under Buckley, we do have a right to give money to political campaigns. Electioneering is understood as a form of communication, as “speech.” Thus paying for elections is covered by the First Amendment. Congress may limit the size of campaign donations, but may not ban them altogether.

The underlying theory of Buckley implies that candidates may use donations to campaign, but not for their personal enrichment. However, most incumbent Members of the House are safe in most elections. Therefore, they are not forced by competition to spend their money efficiently on electioneering. It is hard to know how the average incumbent spends his or her money, since spending reports are not combined into one dataset that can be analyzed easily. But when reporters from the LA Times aggregated all the expenditure reports in 1992, they found that House candidates spent only 27 percent of their funds on broadcast advertising, and another quarter on other forms of campaigning (such as direct mail and canvassing). They used most of their money for activities that benefited them without advancing their campaigns: lavish travel budgets, nice offices, meals, payrolls. Thus large campaign donations made politicians’ lives more comfortable; they did not purchase “speech.”

Mr. DeLay’s contracts with his wife and daughter fit that pattern. They were campaign expenditures, thus protected as free speech under Buckley, yet their sheer size suggests that personal enrichment was a motive. The legal question becomes whether the payments so far exceeded market value that they did not represent “campaigning” at all.

Along with many other people, I feel that the Court erred in Buckley by equating “speech” with money. I would have no constitutional objection if all campaign contributions were banned. However, I don’t think that reducing–or even prohibiting–private contributions would fix the system, because wealthy interests would simply pay for their own advertising, canvassing, and other forms of campaigning. Banning independent expression is impossible if we have free speech. For instance, my blog might conceivably help or hurt a candidate, and then it would represent an “independent campaign expenditure.” But regulating my blog would violate my First Amendment rights. Thus, in my view, the only real solution is to provide free forms of communication (such as advertising time, televised debates, and mailings) that become important parts of campaigns. These free opportunities would be equally distributed to challengers and incumbents; they would be untainted by private interests; and they would be genuine “speech” rather than lifestyle-enhancements for politicians.

Within the last week, I’ve heard about two excellent projects. They each deserve a full post, but they also go so nicely together that I’ll mention both here:

Citizen Joe is a website that provides substantive, ideologically balanced introductions to policy debates. It offers “weekly updates on the major bills being voted on in Congress,” “guides to key policy issues with facts and a balanced pro & con,” and “facts on over fifty policy areas with recommended links for readers who want to find out more.” There is also a short, basic guide to civic engagement. I looked carefully at the subject areas that I’m supposed to know something about, such as education policy, and I found the guides accurate, balanced, and up-to-date. However, what’s really impressive about this site is its origin. A band of volunteers have created it through their own free labor. At a time when the policy debate is fractured and shrill and the mass media typically neglect to explain basic matters of substance, it’s great to see a few citizens work together to educate themselves and the public.

Orange Band is a student-organized project that has reached about 6,000 people so far. Organizers distribute “4×18 inch strips of orange fabric” to fellow students. Those who accept a strip write the name of an issue on it, thereby signalling their willingness to discuss that issue with people they meet. Many students wear the strips on a single campus, creating an impression of a community that is open to discussion. Orange Band also organizes educational forums on issues, with “with speakers, panelists, and video showings.”