Is "campaign finance reform" about good government? We’ve long argued not – that reformers seem to care very little about governmental outputs, thinking it best to focus on an ideology of inputs. the success of tax funding of campaigns is not measured by whether they lead to better government, but by the number of candidates who participate in the system.* If contributions can’t be shown to be a source of corruption, it is enough if they create "an appearance" of corruption. Make no mistake – this is an ideology, and a relatively blind one at that, for no study dissuades, no amount of experience shatters the belief that more reform is required. But historically, reformers have at least argued that they cared about good government.
That’s why Michael Malbin’s testimony before the Illinois General Assembly this week is so interesting. Malbin directly attacks testimony provided the day before by the Center for Competitive Politics, in a most interesting way – good government, apparently, is not the issue at all. Malbin testified:
[T]he Center [for Competitive Politics] is fond of pointing to a Governing Magazine ranking of the country’s best state governments, noting that two of the top three — Utah and Virginia — are states without contribution limits. This is another non sequitor. The magazine ranked the states based on their information systems, personnel systems, budgeting and infrastructure. The ranking does not have the slightest relevance to the issue at hand.
Really? Not the slightest relevance to the issue at hand? We would have thought that the issue at hand was "good government." Does not a state government’s management speak to the quality of its government? Of course, one might argue that there are other ways to measure good government. We’re hardly slavishly devoted to Governing. For example, J. Skelly Wright, an elegant advocate of political regulation in the 1970s and 80s, argued that campaign finance restrictions were necessary to get states to impose "a windfall profits tax on oil companies, hospital cost containment," regulation of auto dealers, and, "any other legislation that affects powerful interests." This is not a vision of "good government" that I share, but it is a vision of good government. But we never, ever, considered that the measure of good government was, by definition, a highly regulated political system. Quite the opposite, we have always presumed, and been quite willing to say so, that all other things equal, a deregulated system that maximizes citizen freedom is the proper measure of good government.
In any case, we have repeatedly used the Governing Magazine rankings for a couple reasons. First, they avoid exactly the type of substantive political values ranking that Wright sought, focusing, as Dr. Malbin notes, on technical measures. It would be our belief that if the purpose of "reform" is to make sure that states enact certain substantive policies, that would indicate that reform is not intended to be "content neutral" and would therefore make all reform almost certainly unconstitutional. Governing chooses a number of generally uncontroversial, technocratic criteria, so in that respect it seems more relevant to the question of whether a state is governed well, whatever the substantive political goals pursued by its legislature. Second, Governing is a highly respected publication. Finally, Governing is supported by the Pew Charitable Trust, which is also a major supporter of "campaign finance reform." So no one can accuse us of cherry-picking the source.
But we’re happy to use other measurements. For example, the left wing Progressive States Network ranks states for economic development, and low and behold, there is Utah again near the top. As for Virginia, the report says, "Virginia has had among the highest performing economies over the 20 years of the Development Report Card for the States (DRC), appearing on the honor roll numerous times. With straight "B" grades in 2007, Virginia shows that it is an above average place to live and work, operate a business, and invest for the future." Unfortunately, "Clean Elections" Maine and Arizona do not fair so well, with the latter described as "consistently lackluster," while in the former, "Investments in future economic health have consistently been low to average, as has the state’s business climate."
We could just look at economic growth, of course, where again dregulated campaign finance Utah ranked #1 in 2006-2007 (2008 numbers aren’t in yet) followed by New York, a lightly regulated state (corporate contributions allowed up to $5000 aggregate; individual limits quite high, at $150,000 aggregate and up to $37,800 in statewide races); highly regulated Washington (although even Washington allows some direct union and corporate contributions), and all but deregulated Texas. Unregulated, rust belt Illinois, where Mr. Malbin delivered his testimony, ranks pretty low overall, but it ranked better than either "clean elections" state, sunbelt Arizona or beautiful Maine. Within the region, Illinois actually ranked better for economic growth than the more highly regulated neighboring states of Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin, although worse than the more regulated neighboring states of Iowa and Minnesota.
We could go on, but at this point we’re detracting from the message – surely the truest measure of good government is, well, good government. By virtually any measure – Governing is just one, which we’ve used for the reasons stated – there is no evidence that regulation of the political system has fostered better government, at least in comparison with less regulated states.
Conspicuously absent from Dr. Malbin’s testimony, which is, however, accompanied by lots of cool charts, is any claim that contribution limits will improve the lives of Illinois citizens or lead to "good government," however defined. Malbin is so determined not to mention any measure of good government that he even criticizes us for considering the effects of campaign finance laws on public corruption convictions. "Absurd!" he exclaimed (or maybe he just "said" this – the written transcript doesn’t always capture the inflection). Well. I mean, we wouldn’t call that measure the be all/end all of good government, but at least it is some measure. After all, it’s the reformers who keep telling us that campaign finance reform will "clean up" government. So we take one measure of "clean" government that is available and quantifiable, and they tell us it’s a non-sequitur.
The funny thing is, we’re willing to take almost any definition of "good government" Mr. Malbin or other reformers want to come up with, and see if restrictions on political freedom and speech, in the form of campaign finance restrictions, demonstrate results. We’d just like them to pick something, so that we could actually measure the success of "reform." But ideology, not results, seem to drive the reform movement.
Of course, we have ideological beliefs, too. We believe that good government is important to human progress and to protecting freedom. We believe that good government is measured by results. We believe that the extent to which individual freedom if fostered and protected is a value that is very important in determining if a state is well governed. We oppose corruption in government, and believe that the structure and laws of government should, other things equal, reduce political corruption. But what do "reformers" believe, other than that more regulation is almost always (always?) good, and that deregulation should be opposed?
OK, all you folks at the Campaign Finance Institute, and elsewhere in the "reform" community: You don’t like Governing’s criteria? You don’t like corrupt prosecutions as a measure of corruption? Well, give us your measure – what are you trying to acheive with a decade of lobbying for more regulation? Professor Malbin’s testimony provides lots of information on how you predict the make up of contributions might change if contribution limits were imposed in Illinois. But to what end? What is this "good government" you hope to accomplish, and how we will – or you – know when it is reached, so that no more regulation is needed? Or is regulation an end in itself?
