David Broder sorta gets one right...and wrong

David Broder chides liberals for complaining about the Supreme Court decision last week on campaign finance.

The reality that reformers find hard to accept is that in this country, efforts to regulate tightly the flow of money from the private sector to the political world will almost always run afoul of the courts. The effect of much over-regulation is not to shut down the spigots but to drive donors farther and farther underground.

McCain-Feingold achieved one worthy goal in taking elected federal officials out of the business of soliciting unregulated, six-figure "soft money" donations from unions, businesses and wealthy individuals. But it led to a proliferation of "527" groups operating under greater cloaks of secrecy.

Where I disagree with Broder is with his prescription for fixing the proliferation of 527s.

Two approaches remain open. A carefully drafted constitutional amendment could certify Congress's right to some form of campaign finance regulation. More realistically, a system of public finance -- taxpayer-subsidized campaigns -- would enable candidates to cope with the inevitable intrusion of outside voices into their races.

Sure, having the government use taxpayer money to pay for elections would get all the other money out of politics. Never mind the tremendous amount of money that would be necessary to fund the campaigns of candidates for all federal offices. The question still remains of how that would stop citizen groups or, if you prefer, special interests, from running their own ads. Why would the Wisconsin Right to Life organization, the one whose ad was upheld last week, want to stop running an ad about Russ Feingold blocking judicial nominees just because Feingold got taxpayer money to pay for his campaign? Why would moveon.org or any other 527 decide to stop trying to influence political campaigns? So Broder's solution wouldn't stop money in politics unless he also got that "carefully drafted constitutional amendment." Somehow, I don't think we need to hold our breath waiting for two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for such an amendment to block the outside ads that are helping some of them get elected.

Instead of these fruitless attempts to try to get money out of politics and to halt citizens from trying to affect their government's actions, why not try transparency. Have all the donations posted on the web immediately. Let reporters and bloggers as well as each party's research groups go through those files and then see if a candidate is getting money from some group that the public might disapprove of. Let sunlight and the natural inclinatino of every politician to check what his or her opponent is up to be our shield against corruption instead of trying to tinker around with the First Amendment and the right of people to try to influence politics.