_________________
A law establishing a campaign finance equalization fund and other measures to ensure fairness in the legislative process
1. There will be no limit whatever on the amount individuals or corporate entities can spend to advocate their political goals, subject to existing laws governing nonprofits.
2. Every direct campaign contribution will be a matter of public record. Failure to report contributions and amounts will constitute a felony.
3. Indirect campaign contributions will be subject to challenge to determine their qualification under this law.
4. A campaign finance equalization fund will be established with an initial appropriation of $10 billion. A surcharge on capital income over $100,000 [or other plausible source of revenue unrelated to monetary speech] will be levied sufficient to replenish the fund on an annual basis.
5. Any political candidate who can present petitions constituting five percent of the electorate in a given jurisdiction will be entitled to a grant of funds from the campaign finance equalization fund equal to the largest campaign contribution on record for his/her specific jurisdiction and race.
6. In the case of the campaign finance equalization fund being exhausted, it will be supplemented from the general fund.
__________________
Unrelated to the core proposal above, other reforms that would make good riders:
7. No public official elected or appointed shall accept a personal gift of any amount. Doing so will constitute a felony.
8. Elected officials are banned for life from subsequently accepting employment as a lobbyist or by a lobbying firm. Doing so will constitute a felony.
___________________
At first glance, one might assume that these provisions would result in catastrophic runaway spending, but just as my photocell circuit creates alternating/opposite effects, the systemic effect of these provisions would be to minimize campaign contributions and create an environment in which the content of speech is again more important than it’s (monetary) volume. The net effect of the campaign equalization fund will be to make it unproductive to raise one’s contribution in order to drown out the opposition. More spending simply funds your opposition: You buy a bigger megaphone:Uncle Sam gives your opponents one to match it. The net effect will be that money in politics will be driven to the absolute minimum necessary for the system to function.
The one underlying assumption of this scheme is that politicians are humans, not machines. A machine would continue to add money until all the money in the world was consumed. A human politician will see that this framework of law sets up a zero sum game and rewards efficient use of resources, not maximum use of resources.
Please note that speech….neither personal nor monetary….is restricted in any way. Anyone can spend any amount. It just won’t gain them any real advantage except to enrich their opponents.