Their Next Great Idea

Sometimes I feel guilty for baiting liberals into arguments, like a track athlete entering the Special Olympics or a law school student at a middle school spelling bee. Even though fewer and fewer of them are being elected (some just get pity votes?), it's important to make sure people know the stakes when deciding how to fill their ballot.

A powerful House Democrat just released his cure for lobbying reform: totally unprecedented (and wholly unconstitutional) federal involvement in all political activity.

Lobbyists exist because legislators have much power to divy up goodies. Millions of people are employed in private companies receiving government contracts. Thousands of federal programs to address every problem under the sun generally consist of awarding grants to community groups and businesses. Even when it isn't through earmarks, legislators have wide authority to help their friends get money. Lobbyists know how to get goodies from legislators for their clients; right now it's by funneling campaign contributions into campaign accounts so lawmakers have to do less time-consuming and humiliating fundraising. Sometimes they treat lawmakers to luxury accomodations they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. High profile cases of bribery have raised the issue and assured a few public reforms.

Conservatives generally understand that it's the government's hand in everything from retirement savings to shower faucet design that affords elected officials the opportunity to distribute spoils. They understand that lobbyists will find some way to help out politicians under any system. They know that you get rid of flies by scooping out the manure.

But Democrats assume that we can regulate our way out of this (and every) problem. Congressman David Obey, ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Barney Frank, who along with the senile Klansman was voted by Hill staffers to be the most intelligent Democrat in Congress (hmmm), propose that all House elections be funded exclusively by the federal government. Liberals say that by taking away the ability of lobbyists to direct campaign donations to candidates, Congressmen will no longer play favorites. And they say it with a straight face.

In the highly recommended, Pulitzer Prize-winning Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, a parody character of Ted Kennedy creates a program to help needy children by taxing children running lemonade stands to buy dustpans for needy kids. Dustpans have nothing to do with the problem and no hope of improving the plight of needy children. At first, the argument seems like a straw man, trying to reject liberals' philosophy by attacking the weakest contention. Under further consideration, the analogy is quite apt.

These powerful, experienced, "esteemed" liberals propose a program that will give between $750,000 and $1.5m to each race, with the amount determined by the district's median family income. Candidates in a race would receive an amount of the race's funds proportional to the party's showing in the previous race (the incumbent will always receive more than half the funding by definition). The program would be mandatory for all candidates. No outside groups would be allowed to make campaign-related speech. Billboards, flyers, door-knocking, etc. would be entirely prohibited, except for the official candidates. No candidates could spend a dime of their own money. National parties could contribute up to 5% of the candidate's allowed expenditures in services like phone banks and posting flyers (a detailed plan is available by subscription to Roll Call). Judging by their plan, more regulation is obviously the answer. And unlike the GOP plan of total transparency, this reform will forever cure Congress from corruption...

Although nobody would expect the highest democrat on one of the most powerful committees to have a knowledge of 'the blueprint of our government,' revoking the rights of citizens to influence the political debate just may run into trouble with, like, you know, the Constitution. The burdensome restrictions that McCain-Feingold imposed barely passed the Supreme Court (5-4 decision, O'Connor wrote the opinion) and even that may be soon overturned. Removing a citizen group's ability to run ads for/against candidates who support/oppose their goals just happens to be antithetical to democracy and decidedly unconstitutional. But that's not a concern for true liberals.

In conclusion, democrats are currently, at this very moment, claiming that any infringement on our God-given right to have private phone conversations with foreign al-Qaeda operatives is "shredding the Constitution." However, totally prohibiting citizens from influencing an election through sponsored messages or cash donations is simply "good governance."

It's more than amazing that this garbage would find supporters among high school students, much less elected officials (in his defense, Obey is from Wisconsin). Mr. Ranking Member, you represent all that is wrong with the liberal wing of the democratic party. I think I would rather have a Republican Majority Leader snorting coke from a podium on the House floor, covered on live television, than let a dolt like you near the reigns of Congress. For assuring your party's permanent minority status, I thank you.