4.04.00
A Well Endowed Democracy

4.03.00
An Unsettling Antitrust Case

4.03.00
The Ph.D. with the Lamp

3.31.00
Elian, Still in the Middle of the Ocean

3.31.00
The Clintonization of America

3.30.00
A Real Shipwreck

3.29.00
The Dead Baby Thing is So Over

3.29.00
Are Gun Locks Like Aspirin Caps?

3.28.00
Putin Together A Government

3.27.00
The Dangers of Mandatory Gun Locks

3.24.00
What Hath Ward Wrought?

3.24.00
Leave E-commerce Alone

3.24.00
E-mailgate

3.23.00
Senator, You're No Ronald Reagan

3.23.00
Against Microsoft: A Primer For Conservatives

3.22.00
Kessler Control

While touted as a "public-private" partnership, the only private part of the Gore proposal is it's financing (which will never materialize). In order to have the powers necessary to confiscate private airtime and to be able to design, monitor and enforce a new campaign-spending scheme, the Endowment would have to be deputized as another powerful agency of the Federal government.

In the end, it would be unlikely that the Democracy Endowment would be able to raise the targeted amount and thus it would need to confiscate inordinate amounts of airtime from television and radio. The burden of this task, and the likely outcry from cash-strapped broadcasters carrying copies of the Fifth Amendment would ultimately lead the Endowment to seek direct taxpayer support for its "worthy" cause. The back door of public funding, having been opened through the enticing rhetoric of a "voluntary" and "private" endowment, would have been finally entered. Public funding would be here to stay.

It is without question that the Democracy Endowment in its ultimate form, much like the public funding of Presidential campaigns, would further entrench the two party system, give greater advantage to incumbents and provide undeserved attention to fringe candidates like Lyndon LaRouche and Lenora Fulani. It would, in essence, overfund less deserving candidates and underfund more needy candidates with lower name recognition and more complex views.

Al Gore is correct on one point — our Democracy needs well-endowed campaigns. Unfortunately, this does not mean a single, oversized, government-run entity with new police powers, handing out meager amounts of cash based on some census formula. Instead, we need to lift the restrictions on current campaigns and allow larger donations to flow into our electoral system. While this may seem counterintuitive to the uninitiated, it is burdensome campaign restrictions that have led to the numerous and well documented outrages of the past few election cycles and are at the core of the demise of our campaign financing system.

In fact, it is the ridiculously low donation limits that force candidates to stretch campaign laws in an effort to fill ten-foot deep campaign coffers one spoonful at a time. It is low limits that cause candidates to spend an inordinate amount of time on the rubber chicken "fundraising circuit" -- where being "all things to all people" and doling out promises to wealthy interests on both sides of almost every issue is rewarded handsomely. This need to raise funds in such small increments prolongs the campaign season and discourages good candidates from seeking federal office. No wonder voters are turned off and are tuning out in increasing numbers.

Instead of addressing this fundamental problem, Al Gore, George W. and the McCain cabal continue to seek the "reform" moniker by proposing new and burdensome campaign restrictions, which all but obliterate the first amendment. Real campaign reform is simple: remove (or at least significantly increase) donor limits and require immediate and full disclosure of the source of all donations. This simple reform will lead to well endowed campaigns, will increase the volume and quality of the information provided to voters and will ultimately lead to an improved democracy.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home