Dr. Joe Harrop: Open government and politics: Who gets what, when, how
There is always a tension between the need for transparency in government and the reality of making deals; that tension is compounded by the need for informed voters, who, if presented with accurate information, will make good decisions. The market model presumes informed citizens; this model of behavior is also called the rational model because it assumes consumers/voters will make rational decisions in their own best interests. The opposite presumption is poorly informed voters will make bad decisions.
During the California presidential debates, one of the candidates made what seemed to me to be a naïve suggestion at the time. The suggestion was to have CSPAN televise the negotiations between the medical community and the government to establish a national health care program. The purpose of the public coverage was to allow us to see the positions of the “special interests,” to make it harder for them to inappropriately influence the process, and to discourage them from public embarrassment by stonewalling their position. Everyone knows how embarrassed the tobacco executives must have been to raise their right hands before the whole world and Congress and echo each other with their “no health issues with cigarettes” claim. They were embarrassed all the way to the bank.
In retrospect, I have been thinking about how that suggestion ties in with another item of contention, the spending limits on campaigns and the disclosure of campaign contributions. Sen. McCain, who appears to be the nominee-elect for one party has been besmirched by some of the more “conservative” members of his party for co-authoring the McCain-Feingold bill, which put some restrictions on campaign contributions. The contention is that his legislation would limit first amendment rights.
If you took a political science course in the last 40 years you most likely have read Harold Lasswell’s 1935 classic book, “Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How.” To simplify the plot: just follow the money. That has always been a major story line, and to the chagrin of many candidates, the money trail has led to many shady characters over the years. Recently an indicted felon had collected several hundred thousand dollars for a major candidate, who gave the money to charity after the exposure.
The McCain-Feingold bill was an attempt to plug a loophole in the law that allowed unlimited contributions of so-called “soft money” for items described as “party-building activities.” It also tried to restrict outside groups from airing “issue ads” that would support or oppose a position but not directly tell voters to vote for or against the candidate against whom the ad was clearly aimed.
In the recent campaign to approve the expansion of gambling, I mean gaming, the proponents of the referenda were very emphatic about who allegedly were the sponsors of the opposition ads. I am sure this was done as a public service, knowing we would not want to support gam(bl)ing in Nevada instead of California.
We have a tradition of public access to public decisions in our country. In California we have the Ralph M Brown Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which try to keep the public’s business “public.”
The gist of these acts is to require decision making to take place in public, and to allow for public notice, input, and access to the process. Thus, for example, our City Council had to discuss and debate issues around the PATH shelter during a public meeting and were not allowed to discuss it between themselves before they met to make their public decision. The City Council was also required to allow for public comment before the decision. This supposedly discourages private arrangements made in “smoke-filled rooms,” and it presumes a public desirous of participation.
With politics there is always the tension between our right to know and the need for some private give and take to implement a policy or make a decision. My bias is for the right to know.
The public does not have to be privy to the discussion of combat strategy or tactics, but our current president has drawn the line farther out to increase the perimeter of the barrier to access to include such curious items as the Secret Service list of White House visitors, and even the identity of those who attended petroleum/energy policy discussions. The principle of “executive privilege” has been invoked many times. One of our current primary candidates conducted policy development on health care in closed sessions. Tip O’Neill and President Reagan conducted negotiations through surrogates in secret to develop a reform package for Social Security.
The issue of our right to know is complicated. In the O’Neill/Reagan example, the final decision was made in public, but the parameters of the decision-making process had been pretty well limited behind closed doors. In the case of the oil industry participation in energy policy, conspiracy hunters are still at work.
While the limitation of campaign donations may make sense to some, it does presume that donations can influence our elected officials. That assumption is core to the American tradition of government as “A Necessary Evil,” as portrayed in the book of that name by Garry Wills. It also underscores the low marks most surveys give our elected representatives.
If we really believe that politicians are influenced by donation, will making the source of political donations clearly available to the public counteract that? Perhaps it will, but that could be a little bit like the small print about the ingredients tucked in out of the way places on food items. We need to read that information if it is going to do us any good.
If the First Amendment protects the right of individuals and organizations to give whatever they want to candidates and issues, it presumes that they are making a public statement. In a public statement the speaker is clearly identified. Maybe that is all we can hope for.