election reform proposal

[Phillip Cutler]

Hi, ---- I'm a new member and unsure of how you folks do things. Hopefully,
a shared concern re the need for election reform will prompt some of you to
read this and comment. ....... Thanks

  
The following proposal is intended to affect an improvement in the manner by
which candidates are selected for office and held accountable to their
platform positions. Most politicians, particularly if they currently hold
office, are opposed to it for obvious reasons. It is presented here in the
same form as it would be to the lay public. I would appreciate any comments
or suggestions. Is it doable or fundamentally flawed? If doable, how can it
best be implemented?
______________________________________________________________
This country was founded upon the concept of a government for and by the
people.  What has evolved, however, is a government willingly held captive
by powerful, narrowly-focused special interests whose agenda often conflicts
with the public good. These special interests heavily fund election
campaigns or, in effect, otherwise bribe many of those running for office.
Consequently,  the public interest isn't represented while our self-serving
legislators frustrate our attempts to remedy the system. As a result we have
voter apathy, ignorance of the issues and an increasingly angry, divided and
manipulated people lacking trust in their government. In essence we're
facing a general breakdown of participatory democracy which places our
democratic form of government in jeopardy.

Campaign reform which focuses upon spending, contribution limits or granting
free TV time is a step in the right direction but it's too full of
loopholes. There are many other ways besides campaign contributions to
influence (bribe) a candidate. Also, and most significantly, this in no way
protects the public against the candidate who will promise anything to get
elected but acts otherwise once in office. The real issue is to assure
accountability. Furthermore, imposing spending limits upon private money has
been judged unconstitutional. This proposal circumvents these problems by
going to the heart of the matter. It greatly minimizes, if not nullifies,
the effectiveness of a bribe in any form, and it does this without tampering
with the Constitution. 

To see how the plan works picture the equivalent of a public bulletin board
wherein every special interest group (single issue, left to right, etc.)
that wants to influence candidates  posts its agenda in the form of a
binding contract for one or more candidates to sign onto. The contract
spells out the details of the candidate's obligations if elected. The
contract may reserve the right of the sponsoring group to make selections
among the candidates who wish to sign on. Candidates, of course, can examine
the board and decide which contracts interest them.  All this is entirely
voluntary.

However, a candidate unwilling to commit to any contracts may be suspected
of a hidden agenda. This will help to flush out stealth candidates from
special interest groups which deliberately misrepresent themselves.
Candidates who have signed several contracts will provide the voters a clear
picture of their position and commitment  on a variety of issues. It's the
contracts that essentially define the candidate's platform. In a sense the
contract represents a written guarantee to the voter who is smart enough to
realize one guarantee is worth a mouthful of promises.

What if the former candidate, once in office, violates the contract? In that
case the full power of the law with its various mechanisms for dealing with
breach of contract can be brought to bear. This includes, I believe,
immediate actions such as injunctions, cease and desist orders, as well as
long term measures. Obviously, if a contract is too restrictive a candidate
wouldn't sign on  unless s/he is ideologically committed to those
restrictions, and that, of course, is what the voters should know.  

An inevitable and positive consequence of this process is that it focuses
attention upon the issues. When the people vote they will tend to look at
the candidate's contractual baggage and choose whoever best represents their
ideal. The voters will know exactly where a candidate stands on issues that
are dear to them and be reasonably assured that once in office s/he is
obligated to honor their positions. Also, party affiliation becomes less of
an issue. Here's an opportunity for a voter who is, say, an environmental
progressive but social or fiscal conservative, to find a candidate more to
his or her liking, irrespective of party affiliation. 

Contracts aren't going to turn the candidate into a robot once in office. A
well worded contract should include a clause that enables the candidate, now
officeholder, to request a permanent or temporary modification because
circumstances may have changed. S/he goes back to the group whose contract
s/he would like to breach and requests permission for the change. If they
okay a variance, fine, but if not, s/he has to honor the contract. A clause
should also be included to allow for situations such as a national
emergency. Obviously no contract can allow for every future contingency and
consequently there will always be issues left solely to the officeholder's
discretion. Still, that's much better than our current system which leaves
the officeholder completely unaccountable.

Additionally, It would seem that this system affords the underdog candidate
a more level playing field because the advantages of party affiliation and
financial resources are lessened. Sure, there's still the opportunity to
present sleazy 30 second TV commercials for those that can afford it but
ultimately it's the hard facts in the contracts rather than rhetoric that's
indisputable.

What are some weaknesses in the plan? Obviously, the paramount issue is the
validity of a contract between a candidate and one or more special interest
groups? We need the special interest groups to provide concrete entities
that can hold the candidate accountable. This time, however, poorly funded
special interest groups that better represent  the public interest will find
a more level playing field.

Conceivably a worst case scenario might go like this: A special interest
group that wants to hide their agenda and their candidate (i.e. the stealth
variety) establishes a cover agenda, say, a moderate Republican slate. This
could serve to keep moderate Republicans from abandoning the party because
of its more extreme element. After the election the stealth candidate
reveals him or herself, not obviously, but by their actions. The SIG
(special interest group) which would normally seek immediate injunctive
action doesn't do so because they are part of the plot. Now what happens?
Are the voters cheated again, as they are with the current system? Is this
illegal in the sense that it involves premeditated fraud? And what if some
other non-stealth candidate signed on as well? Could s/he sue the SIG for
not taking action against the elected stealth candidate?  Subterfuge such as
this could probably be prevented by standardizing suitable terms in the
contract. Stealth candidates might also be revealed if they're only willing
to sign with the  SIG that's secretly sponsoring them but not with other
SIGs whose published agenda is similar to that of the phoney SIG.

At first glance this sounds like a legal quagmire, but it isn't. Far more
complicated commercial contracts are negotiated daily. A well written
contract clearly defines the responsibilities of the participants so that
there's little doubt about when it's breached. It may also make reference to
penalties. Furthermore, any SIG or candidate involved with a contract which
fails to clearly indicate responsibilities is vulnerable to criticism and
unlikely to attract candidates or public support. 

The following are a few related observations.  As a precedent of sorts,
Massachusetts passed a law which binds legislators to support legislation
adopted in local advisory referendums. ...  California  has an initiative
process which, should it become necessary, enables people to legislate for
themselves.  ....  In Wisconsin the New Party  has found local candidate
'contracts' a valuable tool to attract candidates eager for their
endorsement who in turn will guarantee accessability and accountability as
outlined in the contracts.  ....  As for the GOP's Contract with America,
there's no more accountability built into it than the previous or current
system.  If anything, special interest influence has dramatically increased.

Sure, there are lots of "what ifs" to be considered along with legal issues
which may involve constitutional law, but most anything is an improvement
over the gridlock and knavery we currently have.  Hopefully, this proposal
is a tool  to once again make it a  government for and by the people. The
potential benefits warrant its serious consideration.

Any comments and suggestions are most welcome and if you share this view
would you please use your influence to help make it happen.


Phillip Cutler 
pcutler at hooked.net