Americans say we must change the nature of the relationship between money and politics. Yet these citizen conversations conducted for the Money + Politics project by The Harwood Group also suggest that people's core concerns about the way we practice politics will not be fixed by any of the existing proposals for campaign finance reform. Citizens are looking for more than spending and contribution limits, public financing, or better financial disclosure of campaign funds.
Citizens think about questions of campaign finance within the context of a larger set concerns they hold about politics. These concerns center on how political information is packaged and communicated; the process by which political choices are framed and priorities are set for the public agenda; how candidates for public office are selected and the extent to which they reflect who we are; the balance between promotion of public and private interests; and citizens' own role in politics.
People argue that even a radical overhaul of our existing campaign finance system will not fully address their deep and overarching concerns. This is not to say that they are against changing the campaign finance system; rather, campaign finance reforms may be necessary, but are not sufficient. In the words of one Dallas man, "We throw these band-aids at the problem they're not really taking care of the fundamental issue."
Citizens are ready to strike a new compact concerning money and politics. But if fundamental and sustainable change is to take root, such questions must be examined in the context of people's larger concerns about the way politics is going in this country.
The relevance of these findings for the Money + Politics project is critical. The current mood of the country gives us the opportunity to re-frame the debate over money and politics in a way that relates to people's most fundamental concerns and aspirations for politics in America.
But to do this we need to engage citizens in a way that is fundamentally different from the strategies that have so far failed to capture the public's interest and imagination. This report suggests several touchstones to design a process that will enable people to change the equation between money and politics.
Americans have not given up on the possibility that politics can work to make their lives better.
Yes, citizens continue to be angry and frustrated about the state of politics in America. Many have even opted to turn their backs on "politics as usual." But even those citizens who believe they have been pushed out of political life by forces largely beyond their control still maintain a profoundly positive sense of what politics could be.
Campaigns and politics can be about genuine efforts to make choices and solve problems about serious discussion of real choices on relevant issues.
Politics can be about people believing in ideals and respecting public leaders who hold deep convictions.
Campaigns can be a time for citizens and political leaders to make a genuine connection for citizens to get the true measure of a candidate's positions, ability and character and for candidates to gain a true sense of people's concerns and aspirations.
Public office can be grounded in a genuine sense of public service.
Each and every American can have the opportunity to contribute to the political process whether through getting involved in a neighborhood association or the P.T.A., voting, supporting the candidate of their choice, or running for elected office.
At the foundation of these aspirations is a set of core values that citizens believe should guide the way politics works. People are looking for equity in the way public leaders treat the concerns of all Americans; civility in our public discourse; public officials with a sense of honesty and integrity that leads them to view public office as public service; opportunity to choose the best candidate or solution; fair competition that places all candidates for public office on an equal playing field; and common sense in the way we approach problems.
Unfortunately, these aspirations and values are obscured by the "solution wars" that dominate the current debate over campaign finance reform.
Americans' aspirations for more productive politics are genuine and deep. Indeed, citizens' frustration with politics is based largely on their sense that there is a better way, but that the way we continue to practice politics places an impenetrable barrier between them and their aspirations.
One of the principal complaints of people in these focus groups was that far too little attention is paid to substantive issues that are of concern to people in their day-to-day lives. People say that a lack of civility in all aspects of political life has pushed aside the real work of solving practical problems.
Moreover, citizens speak with great passion of their frustration with a political system that too often forces them to vote not for, but against, both candidates and ideas. People have a clear sense of what is wrong with this sort of politics.
Issues are too often presented in terms of personality contests and false choices that don't ring true with citizens' real concerns.
The media get in the way instead of helping people sort out issues that are of importance to them in their daily lives they condescend to the public while stoking the fires of negativity.
Overly long election campaigns divert attention from the business of real problem solving.
There is almost no connection between what is said during a campaign and what happens after the election it is not only that promises aren't kept, but that "hot button" issues placed at center stage during a campaign fall out of sight once the votes are counted.
People are also angry and disappointed that politics as it currently works leaves too few "entry points" for citizens to involve themselves in politics in ways that are meaningful to them.
At the same time, citizens say that they need to play a larger role in creating and acting on these entry points to a more meaningful politics. Indeed, citizens say that most people don't take enough responsibility for the quality of politics in America.
In this regard, one of people's primary concerns is that our society suffers from social and moral decay. Citizens say that the shape of our politics and behavior of our political leadership are simply reflections of the pride, selfishness, and greed that too often guide our lives.
Citizens are equally concerned that when people are confronted with a system that they don't like, they are too willing to simply throw their hands up and walk away. Instead of complaining, people argue that they and their fellow citizens should not only vote, they should get out and work for the issues that concern them and the candidates who make a real effort to solve problems.
When citizens look at the relationship of money to their broader concerns about politics, they see several roadblocks standing between them and their dashed aspirations. Above all, citizens believe that the current relationship between money and politics leaves public officials unaccountable and unresponsive to the concerns of citizens. People have a strong sense that the way we organize and finance election campaigns isolates public officials, and the political process more generally, from citizens.
Citizens believe that they are losing more and more control over the way elections are conducted. They point to a number of indicators to support these perceptions.
Public officials are invariably more apt to listen and respond to well-funded special interests. When push comes to shove, say citizens, elected representatives are going to respond to the concerns of the big donor, not those of the average constituent.
Because it has become so expensive to run for elective office, candidates either must be extremely wealthy or rely on monied interests. Citizens find it increasingly difficult to "see themselves" when they look at their public officials, and sense that public officials are increasingly out of touch with the concerns of most people.
Special interests have too much control, not only over who wins elections, but over citizens' very choice of candidates. Citizens say that a candidate's ability to raise contributions determines elections, not their stand on issues.
People are frustrated that the more we spend on campaigns, the more separated candidates seem to become from ordinary people. They see public officials using more and more sophisticated technology and techniques to "reach out" to the public, yet these methods only leave the public feeling more divorced from politics.
Even during election campaigns, say citizens, candidates don't present themselves "in the flesh" to the public. Instead, they use expensive advertising techniques to sell a pre-packaged image of themselves.
Citizens are also concerned that the current system provides an environment in which public officials are too often led to compromise their integrity and sink to corruption. Citizens are concerned that politics is too often driven by back-room deals and pay-offs.
Citizens' concerns center not only on what is illegal, but on ways by which perfectly legal practices either compromise the integrity of public service or leave an appearance of conflict-of-interest. They believe that too many good people go into politics with the best intentions, only to find themselves in a system that corrupts them. People have little trouble describing their sense of the true cost of the current campaign finance system.
The high cost of campaigns leads candidates to demean both themselves and the offices they seek by pressuring special interests and wealthy individuals for large contributions.
The need for greater and greater funds to run successful election campaigns prompts public officials to compromise themselves to the point where they are beholden of special interests, and ignore the public interest.
Politics has become a career instead of a calling and politicians will do anything to win elections. Citizens see too many public officials taking advantage of their position and making significant sums of money during their time in office, fueling people's sense that politics has been reduced from public service to just another money-making scheme.
Citizens may not describe the intricate details of their ideal system of campaign finance, but they do say with great conviction what is important to them when it comes to money and politics. They draw a framework for a better politics that is based on their core values. They want a campaign finance system that will:
ensure that contributions come with "no strings attached," so that public officials will pay equal attention to the concerns of all Americans;
eliminate many of the financial temptations that lead honest public officials to compromise their integrity, or to outright corruption;
promote elections characterized by fair competition on a more level playing field;
encourage campaigns that are centered on real choices about issues that are of genuine concern to people, instead of on divisive "hot button" issues that lend themselves to expensive thirty-second television commercials;
support less expensive, professionalized campaigns and more opportunities for "hands on" campaigns that allow citizens to make more direct, personal connections with candidates; and
provide citizens the opportunity to choose from a field of candidates that "looks more like us."
Yet, when citizens talk about how to eliminate the negative influence of money on campaigns and politics, they also struggle with tensions over how to eliminate money's influence without compromising their values or frustrating their aspirations.
Citizens say they do not want drastic measures taken to address questions of campaign finance. They are firmly opposed to creating a lot of new regulations and red-tape. It is their firm belief that good people should not be burdened and that clever people will simply find a way to get around such regulations.
Citizens balk at the prospect of being forced to support candidates with whose views they disagree. At the same time, they do not want to initiate any new rules that would infringe on the ability of either candidates or citizens to express their political views.
What's more, citizens seriously doubt that incumbents will make any serious effort to reform a system that now serves to keep them in office.
People want to engage these issues, but they struggle with how to ensure that moving in one direction or another won't undermine any of the competing values that are at the foundation of their aspirations for politics. It is this uncertainty that drives them away from proposals at the center of the current campaign finance debate, most of which they view as legislative quick fixes or mere window-dressing.
When it comes to the relationship of money to politics, Americans are looking for solutions that will allow them to realize the larger aspirations they hold for society, politics, and government. In this sense, people in these focus groups are telling us that we will have mis-framed the issue if we focus solely on our country's system of campaign finance.
Rather, people's concerns about money and politics relate to fundamental questions regarding the packaging and communication of political information, the process by which political choices are framed and priorities are set for the public agenda, how candidates for public office are selected and the extent to which they reflect who we are, finding a sensible and fair balance between private and public interests, and the role of citizens in all forms of politics.
In essence, people are seeking a new compact between themselves and the role that money plays in the entire political process.
When citizens struggle with how to strike such a compact, they sense that there are no easy answers. They are not convinced, for example, that changing the way we finance campaigns will restore civility to public discourse, or that the media and public officials will suddenly begin to address issues that are of concern to people in their daily lives.
It is precisely because of these doubts and the frustrations they create that many citizens say they turn to such measures as term limits as the only logical solution. And although citizens are looking for anything that will enable them to regain control over politics, they are also sending a clear message that merely reforming the campaign financing process will not address their core concerns.
Citizens are searching for new ways to engage the political process and for paths that will allow them to fulfill their aspirations for a better politics. Looking at the relationship between money and politics is a critical part of the journey down that path.
Four focus groups were held with approximately 12 people each from the following cities: Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; and Denver, CO. Participants in each group were recruited to reflect a cross-section of ages, race, income, gender, and education. Each group lasted about two hours, was led by a trained moderator, and was audiotaped. The purpose of the discussions was to gain a sense of the range of values and issues most important to citizens concerning politics and campaign finance.
The Harwood Group is a public issues research and innovations firm that works with public and private sector organizations to figure out the essence of public challenges and how to take effective action. Much of the firm's work centers on rebuilding public relationships and creating effective social change.
The Harwood Group has undertaken projects on various public issues, including education, youth, health care, economic development and change, environment, science and technology, the political process, civic life, and community development.
The Harwood Group's clients include: Georgia Health Decisions; Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education; CIVITAS/Center for Civic
Education; Pew Partnership for Civic Change; Kettering Foundation;
Knight-Ridder, Inc.; U S WEST Foundation; The Miami Herald; The
Tallahassee Democrat; National Commission for the Renewal of American
Democracy (Project Democracy); Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Texas Chief
Executives Roundtable.
[ Radio | TV | Newspapers | Press Club | Polls | Meet the Candidates | Community Center | Let's Talk ]