When people ask me about the one government reform I would put into place if I had a magic wand, I often say "real campaign finance reform." I believe there is simply too much money in politics. The current situation gives rise to special access and undue influence by those who can and do spend substantial sums. And at least as worrisome is the appearance of such access and influence. The majority of members of the electorate increasingly feel that politics and elections are games open to the few and the cost of admission is a large donation or independent expenditure.
Why, then, do so many so-called good government reforms lead to more
expensive races? Well, to start, let's take my least favorite government
reform: term limits. As a result of them many elected officials are not
just running for re-election every few years, they are endlessly eyeing
and running for (and raising money for) the next post.
But what about something I would consider to
be a positive government reform? Well, let's take redistricting. Now in
California an independent redistricting commission draws the state and
federal legislative lines.
Previously legislators drew their own
district lines, not surprisingly in ways that best assured their
re-election. By contrast, the independent redistricting commission was
charged with drawing lines that, among other things, keep communities of
interest together. So this seems like a good reform, but one of the
consequences is that there will now be much more competitive races in
some districts. The phrase "more competitive races" is often code for
more expensive races.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.