Paying for Politics

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
J. D. Figueiredo, E. Garrett
{"title":"Paying for Politics","authors":"J. D. Figueiredo, E. Garrett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.578304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even in the wake of the most sweeping campaign finance reform law to be enacted in three decades, further significant reform is inevitable. Special interest money continues to flow through loopholes in the Act, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is near collapse. The next reform should encourage broader participation in the political process by individual citizens, both to dilute the power of special interests and to serve independent democratic values that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has identified as vital to meaningful reform. We propose adopting a refundable tax credit of $100/taxpayer for political contributions to federal candidates and national parties; the credit would be targeted to lower- and middle-income Americans. A refundable tax credit is equivalent to giving each eligible citizen up to $100 annually to use for political contributions. We also present data about the relative importance of political contributions by special interests (corporate, labor and other PACs) and individuals that undermine many of the assumptions on which past reform has been based and that have not been discussed in the legal literature. The data clearly show that small contributions by individuals are the dominant source of money in campaigns, and that the influence of special interest money is subtle, appearing to \"purchase\" benefits like access, a place on the agenda, and minor policy details. Working from an accurate picture of who really pays for politics, and drawing from the experience at the federal and state levels with similar tax refund programs, we present the tax credit as a reform that is simple, easy to administer, and likely to improve political participation by average Americans. Thus, our proposal, unlike the complicated voucher plan with anonymity put forward by Ackerman and Ayres, is likely to be adopted by Congress; moreover, it will appeal to a bipartisan consensus because it mixes public funding with a decentralized allocation mechanism using a tax subsidy.","PeriodicalId":47124,"journal":{"name":"Southern California Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern California Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.578304","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Even in the wake of the most sweeping campaign finance reform law to be enacted in three decades, further significant reform is inevitable. Special interest money continues to flow through loopholes in the Act, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is near collapse. The next reform should encourage broader participation in the political process by individual citizens, both to dilute the power of special interests and to serve independent democratic values that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has identified as vital to meaningful reform. We propose adopting a refundable tax credit of $100/taxpayer for political contributions to federal candidates and national parties; the credit would be targeted to lower- and middle-income Americans. A refundable tax credit is equivalent to giving each eligible citizen up to $100 annually to use for political contributions. We also present data about the relative importance of political contributions by special interests (corporate, labor and other PACs) and individuals that undermine many of the assumptions on which past reform has been based and that have not been discussed in the legal literature. The data clearly show that small contributions by individuals are the dominant source of money in campaigns, and that the influence of special interest money is subtle, appearing to "purchase" benefits like access, a place on the agenda, and minor policy details. Working from an accurate picture of who really pays for politics, and drawing from the experience at the federal and state levels with similar tax refund programs, we present the tax credit as a reform that is simple, easy to administer, and likely to improve political participation by average Americans. Thus, our proposal, unlike the complicated voucher plan with anonymity put forward by Ackerman and Ayres, is likely to be adopted by Congress; moreover, it will appeal to a bipartisan consensus because it mixes public funding with a decentralized allocation mechanism using a tax subsidy.
为政治买单
即使在30年来最全面的《竞选资金改革法》颁布之后,进一步的重大改革也是不可避免的。特殊利益集团的资金继续通过法案的漏洞流入,总统竞选基金接近崩溃。下一步的改革应该鼓励个人公民更广泛地参与政治进程,既要削弱特殊利益集团的权力,又要服务于独立的民主价值观,而最近最高法院的判例已经认定,这种价值观对有意义的改革至关重要。我们建议对每位纳税人向联邦候选人和全国性政党提供的政治捐款实行100美元的可退还税收抵免;税收抵免将针对中低收入美国人。可退还的税收抵免相当于每年给每位符合条件的公民至多100美元用于政治捐款。我们还提供了有关特殊利益集团(公司、劳工和其他政治行动委员会)和个人政治捐款的相对重要性的数据,这些数据破坏了过去改革所基于的许多假设,这些假设在法律文献中没有被讨论过。数据清楚地表明,个人的小额捐款是竞选资金的主要来源,而特殊利益资金的影响是微妙的,似乎可以“购买”一些好处,比如进入议程,在议程上占有一席之地,以及次要的政策细节。从谁真正为政治买单的准确图景出发,并借鉴联邦和州一级类似退税计划的经验,我们提出了税收抵免作为一项简单、易于管理、可能提高普通美国人政治参与的改革。因此,与Ackerman和Ayres提出的复杂的匿名代金券计划不同,我们的提案很有可能被国会采纳;此外,它将吸引两党达成共识,因为它将公共资金与使用税收补贴的分散分配机制相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Established in 1927, the Southern California Law Review is an independent and autonomous entity. Matters of policy, procedure and content are determined solely by the Editorial Board. All decision making authority is delegated by the Dean of the law school to the Editor-in-Chief. The EIC, in turn, delegates various responsibilities to the Editorial Board and the Staff. Each year the Law Review publishes one volume, which is produced in six separate issues. Each issue normally contains several articles written by outside contributors and several notes written by Southern California Law Review staff members.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信