IT’S A GRAY AREA: Let’s stabilize election campaigns

Is it just me, or do you also feel that our presidential elections are an enormously expensive, all-consuming and never-ending practice?

If so, why not restore some sensibility in our democracy, or what is left of it after the congressional gerrymandering of the electoral districts, and try two things quite differently? The first would be to change the scheduling of the presidential primary elections, and the second would be to change the funding of the elections themselves.

As to scheduling, what if our country were divided geographically or otherwise into four sections for our presidential primary elections?

All of the states in the first section would have their presidential primaries on the same day, let’s say in March. Then four weeks later the second group of states would have their primaries, four weeks after that the third, and a final four weeks later the fourth. Then the scheduling of each presidential election in the following years would be rotated, so that the last election’s fourth section would be first in the next election, and the former first would be second, etc.

Many states today are continually moving their primary elections forward to be more influential in the presidential nominating process. For example, Arizona is now trying to move its primary election forward by three weeks to Feb. 5, so that it will join at least 19 other states, including California, with primaries or caucuses on that date.

In response, Iowa is talking about moving its caucuses up to December so it can maintain its substantial influence in the election process. This would mean the formal presidential process would last for almost a year until the general election in November.

Of course, since the primaries and caucuses are earlier, the candidates are starting their campaigns ever earlier as well, which naturally requires them to raise even more money to be competitive. With the way things are going, unfortunately, some candidates might begin campaigning for the 2012 presidential election before the 2008 election ends.

Even though each state would have to accept this new program, this change would stabilize and bring some sensibility back to the election process.

It would not give any particular state a permanent undue amount of influence, but it would reduce the physical and financial war of attrition that is now a fixture in presidential primary elections.

The second suggestion is to change our election financing laws to allow all flesh-and-blood people to donate any amount of money to any candidate — no limits, and no contributions from entities such as corporations, labor unions, or political parties. Campaigns should be required, however, to disclose contributions above a threshold level, such as the present $200, on the Internet within 24 hours.

If Bill Gates were to run for office, he could spend billions of his own dollars to finance his campaign without any legal problems. As a matter of free speech and fundamental fairness, why should he not be allowed to spend the same amount of money for the election of various other candidates of his choice?

In today’s system, the two major political parties can get around all of the campaign finance restrictions. This is done by “bundling,” where campaign donors solicit checks from their friends, family and colleagues for a particular candidate.

Another way is for the candidate’s political party to use its own money, called “soft” money, to pay for things like mail and telephone campaigns or other beneficial exposures for that chosen candidate.

And, of course, there is always the infamous “section 527 funding.” This practice is named after the section of the federal tax code under which “independent” groups can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for a candidate, as long as they do not “coordinate” that spending with the campaign itself (wink, wink).

So let’s cut out the deception and the chicanery and allow the campaign donations to be contributed fully and openly. As a practical matter, election campaign finance cannot be reformed effectively.

The fundraisers and donors can always outsmart the regulators; and since members of Congress have already mastered election finance and use it toward re-election, they certainly cannot be realistically expected to pass more effective laws that will reduce their own chances for easy cash.

Eliminating contributions from non-human sources would reduce not only electoral corruption and gamesmanship, but also the influence of big lobbying organizations such as corporations and labor unions.

These groups should not be involved in political elections anyway, because they use the money of their shareholders or members without permission. Of course, if the shareholders or union members want to contribute to a particular candidate, under the new program they would be allowed to — subject to full public disclosure.

After the 2004 national election, columnist Arianna Huffington wrote (with tongue at least partially in cheek) that we should do away with the elections and simply award political offices to candidates who raise the most money. Unfortunately, that is virtually what we are doing today under our present system. Let’s do away with the long, interminable election process and the ineffective campaign-funding laws for them. Then maybe we might actually start to get back a little bit of our democracy.