Confessions Of A Neo-Mugwump

(CBS)  This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

I've just been called a neo-Mugwump and I don't like it one bit.

Actually, I haven't been called a neo-Mugwump to my face (I guess I don't move in the right circles). But people of my ilk have been.

Neo-Mugwump is the term Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol used in her terrific 2003 book, "Diminished Democracy," to describe those who are always trying to "reform" politics to make it cleaner and more professional. Neo-Mugwumps like campaign and lobbying reform and they don't like PACs, fundraisers, fat cats and special interest groups.

I've been a classic neo-Mugwump for my whole life. But I'm ready to throw in the towel and give it all up. I think. I'm pretty sure. Maybe. In any case, it's all because of Professor Skocpol.

I was in high school during Watergate and started reporting on politics in Washington ten years later. I always believed that any political reform short of public financing of campaigns would be imperfect, messy but still worthwhile. I spent a lot time reporting on abuses of the campaign finance system; there was a lot to report. Same with lobbying.

I certainly believed in the idea of reforming the system, even if I was skeptical, even cynical, about the efficacy of reform. I had seen unintended consequences turn several high-minded reforms into deforms. I had observed that the lobbyists and political evil-doers were wilier, better financed and more plentiful than the Hill staffers who wrote the laws and the agency workers who try, I guess, to enforce them.

Still, I thought having less money, not more, floating around campaigns and lobbying couldn't do anything but help. I've not been at all persuaded by the Supreme Court's argument in the most important campaign finance case, Buckley v. Valeo, that money is equivalent to speech in politics and so should be regulated only with great reluctance. Cleaner is better.

Professor Skocpol thinks this attitude "treats politics as if it were something dirty and implicitly hold up the ideal of an educated elite safely above and outside of politics." She named people who think this way after the Mugwumps, high-minded Republicans who refused to support the GOP candidate in the election of 1884, James G. Blaine ("Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, continental liar from the state of Maine.")

The main theme of "Diminishing Democracy" is to show how large, national chapter organizations – groups that tended to be made up of active volunteers from all classes – have been replaced by "professionally managed advocacy groups without chapters or members."

You know who they are - the groups that stuff your mailbox and call during supper. Skocpol believes these groups have reduced participation in civic life, limited opportunities for people from different class and communities to work together on important things and generally diminished our democracy.

One of her ideas to improve things is let non-profits back into politics and elections. The tax laws intentionally make it very hard for non-profits and membership groups to get involved in campaigns and elections. In the spirit of neo-Mugwumpism, it was decided that non-profits shouldn't be "partisan" or give directly to candidates and campaigns.

Skocpol says this is the opposite of what we need, that "the United States should repeal or modify all kinds of rules designed to create firewalls between partisan and nonpartisan activities."

Instead of firewalls, she argues, allow organized groups to campaign and contribute in elections. Stop trying to insulate one world from the other. Let people who are civic-minded get involved in politics through the groups they are active in, if that's what they want to do. It is also possible that in doing this, the business world would actually have more and better competition for political influence.

More broadly speaking, perhaps a cure for today's unimpressive political situation is not less politics, but more politics. The sanitary view of politics is snobbish and wrongheaded.

Having broken my share of stories about mini-campaign finance scandals, I now think they are not nearly as big a threat to effective government as I used to think. The bigger problem is personnel. So many aspects of politics today, especially the fundraising, are so unpleasant and so undignified, that lots of fine people wouldn't ever consider running for office.

Letting non-profits be partisan and political could bring great people into the process. Letting them spend money freely could even make fundraising less onerous. In the same spirit, we should probably let individuals give a lot more than they can now.

This is reformer sacrilege, I know. But maybe the way to repair failed regulation and reform isn't with more regulation and reform, but less. Perhaps the political marketplace should be more open. The current closed system is losing trust and legitimacy steadily and has been since the 1970s.

So that makes me a reformed neo-Mugwump. I think.

---

If you prefer e-mail to public comments, complaints or arguments, send them along to Against the Grain. We may occasionally publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

By Dick Meyer

[sjc_1]

I believe in Public Money for Public Office. Do away with all private contributions. It is just legalized bribery and a way to buy influence. The people that take the money are guilty of influence peddling. There is no "smoking gun", just a nod and a wink. It would be hard to believe that the PACs raise all that money and expect nothing in return.

The oil companies certainly expected something from Junior when they backed him in both the primary and general elections. They got one heck of a return on their investment too. The price of oil has tripled, their profits have soared to over $100 billion per year and they now are in line to control all the oil in Iraq.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Money is equivalent to speech in politics and so should be regulated only with great reluctance".

So Supreme Court, if you want me to believe that bull, then pay me.

Money is not equivalent to speech, try to buy a hamburger with words. In politics, hold up a $1,000 bill, say absolutely nothing, and see if you get your hamburger.

Money is corruption in politics, as it influences the receiver to make decisions that are anti-human, and makes Supreme Court justices redefine the English language

[brianbwb-2009]

to notblue,

You have the right idea, the only reason I'd push for more than 90 days is to give the public time to absorb information, to see who waffles and who has principles, and to allow light of a little fact-checking to investigate and expose the liars amongst them (or who lies the least).

I'm thinking 120 days, with Saturdays and Sundays off limits, and no midnight infomercials (those things should be banned anyway...)

Since the Supreme Court has sold us down the river, ignore them. Then whoever spends millions of their own money to supplement the allocated share of media presence is automatically disqualified, cause no one does that without expecting a profit.

[r9119111]

notblue:

I agree with your approach. With the way recent elections have been going, candidates better start lining up for 2012,2016 and 2020. Elections by themselves are becoming even bigger business. Elections are becoming such a farce. Buying political influence leads to nothing but corruption. Can we rightly say that isn't happening this very moment?

[donnie900]

This .. notion that money makes people more electable is superstition. Money doesn't make people more electable or acceptable. This is the country with the greatest opportunity for the common on the face of the earth. Where a mayor can be scrutinized and criticized for not liking ferrets. Where schools and libraries have people of all race and class and belief structure on the planet!

Money doesn't buy you freedom. Money can in fact, buy you your misery! Don't limit .. ANYTHING!

[notblue]

according to MR. Meyer, let the elctions be bought by the party or special interest or non-profits with the most money, good plan ***, NOT!!!. I say forget the money, forget the television campaigns and commercials, forget the mailings. Give every candidate the exact same forum at the same cost, do not let the campaigning start until 90 days ahead of the elections and once again let the people decide!

[kdeetz1]

Money = Speech is one of the most perverse, dishonest and corrupt decisions by an increasingly corrupt and perverse supreme court. Initially lobbyists just bribed our elected officials for "increased access." Now they write the legislation. As a result there is no democracy (people rule) but plutocracy (rich rule.) Saying that government has no business is regulating elections allows criminals and scofflaws to freely rape the American people. The solution to is to take a step backwards to the '70's when the media as a matter of public service allowed free media access as long as equal time was devoted to all sides. Guess that was too democratic though (and didn't have enough money in it for the media moguls.) Ok, you radcon storm troopers--really let me have it.

[sparks224]

nvme3,
We do not have a 1 person = 1 vote democracy.
We have a 1 dollar = 1 vote democracy.

Did the founding fathers intend for it to be this way? No, of course not, the system has been completely corrupted.

And the Media doesn't dare bite the hand that feeds them.

[nvme3]

money=speech according to the courts.It begs the next question does money equal more speech? So "everyman" is does not have the same right to speech as ATT? Does exxon/mobil have more right to ANWAR than an Alaskan. Does the Say of Enron hold more weight over who should be president than John Doe American? should nike's contribution to Senator X be ok because he supports their utilizing foreign manufacturing to create greater overall profits, as opposed to the shoe maker here supports the challenger who wants to bring sanity back revist so called freetrade agreements and taxes for multinationals? Both have valid arguements. they end game is to have a fair level field for all.

[sjc_1]

Since the court has ruled that campaign contributions are free speech, then maybe it is time to offset some of that corporate muscle.

If public funds are used to offset corporate contributions, they may lose some of their clout. We can match all the private contributions with public funding for candidates and campaigns.

As the laws are written now, there are lots of strings attached to getting public funds. The strings that are attached to private funding become apparent after they are elected.