Democracy 21 is up with a press release revealing that the American public does not like corrupt politicians. Shazam! For this you get six and seven figure dollar Pew and Carnegie Grants? Of course the public is concerned about corruption. The question is, does the public buy into Democracy 21’s speech squelching agenda?
Sayeth Democracy 21:
”According to the AP poll, almost half of likely voters said that ‘recent disclosures of corruption and scandal in Congress’ would be extremely or very important to their votes in November.
”In response to another question asked by the AP poll, 75 percent of likely voters said that political corruption was extremely or very important to them personally, compared to 8 percent of likely voters who said it was slightly or not at all important to them.
Well of course voters are concerned about corruption in government. We certainly are here at the Center for Competitive Politices. Of course, the fact that a voter tells a pollster that “political corruption” is “important” is hardly remarkable. We’re baffled trying to figure out who the other eight percent are. Presumably, they’re the people who don’t like puppies.
The question is, “What to do about it?” Democracy 21 tries to suggest that the public has bought into their speech-quelching agenda. But we think not. Over 90% of taxpayers refuse to earmark – at no cost to themselves, mind you – $3 of their taxes to Democracy 21’s holy grail, public funding of campaigns. A Rasmussen poll of 2000 likely voters, taken for CCP earlier this year, found that only 28 percent supported public financing of campaigns. Democracy 21’s other big issue is to squelch the speech and activities of independent organizations that want to discuss politics. Of course, who is most likely to inform the public about corruption: candidates, or outside groups? We are at something of a loss as to how limiting speech by independent groups serves the cause of preventing corruption.
Also questionable is Democracy 21’s great faith in regulation. As we are seeing more and more, regulation itself can be a source of corruption. Moreover, petty violations of technical administrative requirements draw public focus away from real issues of corruption.
It is an old reformers’ trick, to try to equate public disgust with corruption with public support for the suppression of political speech and activity. Let the buyer beware.
