The Best Campaign Reform Is Holding Them to Their Word

Instead of spinning our wheels on easily circumvented Band--Aid campaign reform measures, we should be devising a mechanism to ensure better accountability from our legislators. What good would it do some special interest to influence a candidate or elected official if he or she is constrained to serving the public interest? Here is how we can do it in a voluntary manner that doesn’t alter the Constitution.

Picture the equivalent of a public bulletin board wherein every special interest group (single issue, left to right, etc.) that wants to influence candidates posts its agenda in the form of a binding contract for one or more candidates to sign onto. We need the special interest groups to provide concrete entities that can hold the candidate accountable. The contracts, which can be thoroughly examined by the public, media policy analysts, etc., spell out the details of the candidate’s obligations to that special interest group. Candidates, of course, can examine the board and decide which contracts to sign onto.

Signing on is voluntary. However, candidates unwilling to commit to any contracts may be regarded with suspicion since they are not willing to obligate themselves contractually to what they promise to do if elected. This will help to flush our stealth candidates from special interest groups that deliberately misrepresent themselves. Candidates who have signed several contracts will provide the voters a clearer picture of their position and commitments on a variety of issues. It’s the contracts that essentially define the candidate’s platform. Who would you buy a used car from the guy who tells you “Trust me” or the guy who will give you a written guarantee that gives you legal recourse?

If the former candidate, now in office, violates the contract, the full power of the law with its various mechanisms for dealing with breach of contract can be brought to bear. This includes, I believe, immediate actions such as injunctions, cease and desist orders and penalties described in the contract.

Obviously, if a contract is too restrictive, a candidate wouldn’t sign on unless ideologically committed to those restraints. That, of course, is what the voters should know.

An inevitable and positive consequence of this process is that it focuses attention upon the issues. When the people vote, they will tend to look at the candidate’s contractual baggage and choose whoever best represents their ideal. The voters will know exactly where a candidate stands on issues that are dear to them and reasonably be assured that once in office, the official is obligated to honor positions. Also, party affiliation becomes less of an issue. Here’s an opportunity for a voter who is, say, an environmental progressive but social or fiscal conservative, to find a candidate more to his or her liking, irrespective of party affiliation.

Additionally, it would seem that this system affords underdog candidates a more even chance because the advantages of party affiliation and financial resources are lessened. Similarly, poorly funded special interest groups that more often represent the public interest will find a more level playing field. Sure, there’s still the opportunity, for those that can afford it, to present sleazy 30-second TV commercials, but ultimately it’s the hard facts in the contracts rather than rhetoric that’s indisputable.

A well-worded contract would allow for a national emergency or enable the candidate, now officeholder, to request a modification if circumstances have changed. The officeholder goes back to the group whose contract would be breached and requests permission for the change. If it approves a variance, fine, but if not, the contract must be honored. Obviously, no contract can anticipate every contingency, and consequently there always will be issues left solely to the officeholder’s discretion. That’s still much better than our current system, which leaves the officeholder completely unaccountable.

At first glance, this sounds like a legal quagmire, but it isn’t. Far more complicated commercial contracts are negotiated daily. A well-written contract leaves little doubt about when it’s breached or the penalties involved.

Sure, there are many “what ifs” to be considered along with legal issues that may involve constitutional law, but most anything is an improvement over the current system, which is breeding a corrosive cynicism and distrust of government. This proposal offers hope of returning us to a government for and by the people.