Recently, we noted one remarkable feature of Michael Malbin’s recent testimony before the Illinois legislature, that being the absence of any standard for measuring the success of contribution limits or other campaign finance regulations, and indeed the dismissal of the use of public corruption trials as "absurd" and of the quality of government management as a "non-sequitur" as measures for determining if campaign finance regulation is worthwhile.
But here’s something else that sure caught our eyes. Testified Mr. Malbin, about the object of regulation:
[W]hat is the behavior contribution limits are supposed to deter? In some places it could involve the awarding of contracts, tax breaks or zoning exemptions, and some of these issues could indeed be handled through criminal prosecution. But the more normal problem is more subtle and more pervasive. I am thinking about public officials who say or imply to people that contributing will give them a stronger voice. Or even more subtly, saying that strong supporters are more likely to get invited to key agenda setting meetings. Influencing the agenda is far too subtle to be made criminal. But the fact is that space on the public agenda is limited and this behavior – while not remotely a crime – is nevertheless a misuse of public office.
Wait a minute. Malbin’s concern is that "strong supporters are more likely to get invited to key agenda setting meetings?" I think we need to talk a bit about politics and governance. I don’t know that I’ve ever gotten a pitch for a political contribution – to a candidate or a cause – that did not imply that contributing would give me a stronger voice, that it would advance my views and incease my political influence. And just who is supposed to be invited to agenda setting meetings? Strong opponents? Or just people who took no strong stand? And reformers think we’re naive about how politics really works! Of course strong supporters get invited to key agenda setting meetings. Duh.
Continuing on, we appreciate that Malbin doesn’t want to make "influencing the agenda" a crime. If he did, every donor, every person who writes a letter to the editor of the newspaper concerning a political issue or race, every citizen who sought a meeting with his representative to talk about an issue of concern would, of course, be committing a crime. Darn tootin’ that attempting to "influence the agenda" is "not remotely a crime." We’re a little disturbed that this even has to be mentioned. But we’re equally disturbed by the notion that it is nevertheless "a misuse of public office." What? Paying more attention to supporters than to others when thinking about government’s agenda is a "misuse of office?"
Now again, most of us here at CCP – not all of us, especially the Democrats on our staff – are fans of limited government that doesn’t use power, spending, and taxes to pick and reward favored groups or individuals. But none of us have ever thought that giving a preferred ear to people who have actually supported one’s quest for office was somehow an abuse of that office. I scarcely know how to address such an argument. Mr. Malbin thought it was "absurd" that CCP would point out that highly regulated states show no reduction in criminal political activity – a "non-sequitur" in discussing reform. What seems self-evidently absurd to us is the notion that it is a "misuse of office" to listen to supporters once elected. We suspect that if that were really the case, few people would ever bother to support a candidate. We’re pretty sure that when Madison supported Jefferson and Hamilton supported Adams, each expected his support would give him a place at the table when it came time for "key agenda setting meetings."
Of course, Malbin means to suggest that there is some element of extortion going on (at least we think that’s the case). But that is undercut by his own statement that, "People who are willing to skirt the edges of criminal behavior are not likely to be deterred from taking bribes by a law that limits campaign contributions. … The vast majority of public officials are decent, hard working people…," not to mention the fact, with which I am certain Michael would agree, that the vast majority of donors are also decent, hard working people who really do want good government policies, as they see them. At a minimum, all this would suggest that there isn’t really much of a problem. But to the extent it is a problem, it merely takes us back to the question we raised in our earlier post – how do we assure good government that promotes the freedom and prosperity of the citizenry? Mr. Malbin seemingly has no interest in this question, having decided that more restrictions and regulation are the answer – regardless of whether or not they yield measurable progress.
Sometimes people say things that are so absurd we can only assume they didn’t mean what they said. Sadly, we fear that Mr. Malbin may be, nonetheless, guilty of "influencing the agenda" of the Illinois legislature (and he doesn’t even live in Illinois.) We agree that this is not "remotely a crime," however, and perhaps it is best to conclude on that point of agreement.
