Sep.29

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

Other Countries Have Better Election Laws

Donald Trump announced his 2024 campaign over 700 days before the election. Each party spent over a billion dollars on the campaign. Only 60% of the eligible voters actually voted. Americans think this is all normal and it happens everywhere. It isn't and it doesn't. American elections are definitely an example of American exceptionalism, and not in a good way. Here are five proposals from Chris Armitage for election laws that have worked fine elsewhere for decades, but which would be revolutionary in the U.S.

• Ban All Corporate Campaign Donations: Corporations are not allowed to make direct donations to campaigns, but they can have PACs that bundle contributions from employees who want to keep their jobs, and from shareholders. They can also make unlimited contributions to PACs if they don't get caught coordinating with campaigns. Most democracies do not allow any corporate funding of campaigns. This is illegal in Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, and many other countries, including many nations in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and even Africa. Canada is a good example. All corporation contributions to campaigns are banned, individual contributions are limited to $1,750 CAD and candidates may spend no more than $5,000 of their own money on their campaign. Contrast that with the U.S., where megadonors can effectively spend $100 million on their favorite candidate or party. All it would take is a law, with very heavy penalties (say, 10x the amount donated above the legal limit).
  
  
• Limit Campaign Length: One of the reasons that campaigns are so expensive is that they are so long. In Japan the campaign period is 12 days. In France, presidential campaigns last 14 days. South Korean campaigns are 22 days. In the U.K. it is 5-6 weeks. In Mexico it is 90 days. The U.S. is a big place and some voters want to see the candidates up close, but realistically, that only happens in the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses. It would certainly be reasonable to ban all campaign expenditures before Jan. 1 of the election year, limiting them to about 10 months. In fact, campaign contributions could be banned before Nov. 1 of the preceding year. If candidates were also banned from spending their own money above, say, $5,000, the whole campaign period could be reduced to 1 year.
  
  
• Put Spending Caps in Place: Many countries limit how much money can be spent on a campaign. These include Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Poland, Slovenia, and the U.K. The caps vary, but the idea is to allow money to talk—but quietly. In Canada, for example, the 2021 federal election had a limit of about $30 million for national parties. In France, the limit for the first round is about $20 million and for the second round about $25 million. In the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that spending money for campaigns is speech and is thus protected. The logical consequence of that is a person giving a politician money to get a job or a contract for his company is also protected speech, rather than a bribe. "Speech" clearly can be limited by law. The Supreme Court can be reined in by having Congress strip the Court of jurisdiction in cases involving campaign financing. This is perfectly legal. Art. III, Sec. 2, paragraph 2 reads (our emphasis):

  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

• Have Campaigns Be Paid for With Public Funds: Many democracies have schemes in which campaigns are financed either by direct grants or a matching scheme. Sweden provides 80-90% of the funding for a seat in the parliament plus a grant to help parties run their offices. Germany has a matching scheme with funding based on votes in the previous election and a match of 45% of individual donations up to a maximum donation of about $4,000 per donor. Arizona had a matching law until the Supreme Court struck it down. Maybe we missed it, but we can't find the clause in the Constitution saying that a legislature cannot pass a law providing any rule for campaign financing it so desires.
  
  
• Mandatory Voting: Twenty-seven countries require all people who are eligible to vote to do so. Australia is the most famous one, with fines for not voting when you are eligible. Belgium also has a mandatory voting law but enforcement is lax. Mandatory voting would work against extremism because people who don't really want to vote but do it to escape a fine are by definition not fierce partisans. If the voting participation was raised from 60% to 90% by a substantial fine for not voting, the electorate would be increased by 50%, mostly with people who are not fanatical partisans. Politicians would be forced to cater to them to a considerable extent. Of course, mandatory voting would have to be coupled with making voting easy, such as allowing anyone who wanted to vote by mail, no questions asked, and to have a voting period of, say, at least 30 days. Venezuela conducted an unintended experiment when it ended compulsory voting. Participation went from 83% to 61% when voting was no longer required.

In short, there is a lot that could be done to get money out of politics and make democracy work. Among other possibilities is making election administration nonpartisan and run by civil servants and overseen by boards not under executive control, which is common elsewhere. Americans tolerate the current system only because they can't imagine any other system. All they have to do is look beyond their border. (V)