Prepared for the panel:Assess, Define and Debate

Michael J. MalbinCampaign Finance Institute

------------------------------------------------National Institute on Money in State Politics

Bigfork MTMay 29-June 1, 2014

Ed’s request: A view from 30,000 feet …

… and looking five to ten years ahead.

Looking ahead -- can imagine two basic possibilities in this policy sphere :

(1) No change in current policies, or even further deregulation.

– We know pretty well how this plays out. •More role for mega-donors• Less Disclosure, etc.

2nd possibility: Let’s imagine major policy changes along lines many reformers advocate. Imagine:

• Matching funds or tax credits – widespread

• Disclosure – robust

• Constitutional amendment – spending limits

What would political world be like then? How would these policies work out in practice?

Before answering, an added overlay:

Participation Theory

However else the world changes,

• We expect the fundamental reasons why some people participate (and others do not) will remain constant.

Theory’s basic structure: People Participate If …

Means – Motivation – Mobilization(Brady Schlozman, Verba)

MeansHaving the means includes having …

• Money (if giving $)

• Time (if volunteering)

• Knowledge / Access

MotivationMost people do have some money /time. Not motivated to use it. Have to ask …

• How important is outcome to donor, as understood by the donor?

• Does donor believe her effort matters?

Mobilization• People are much more likely to

participate if asked. But to be asked:

• Mobilizer has to decide: Is this person (this group of people) worth the effort, given the opportunity cost?

Participation Theory and Matching Funds / Tax Credits

• Focus of policy: change incentives for mobilizers.

• Would it continue to work in future mega-donor age? Depends on –– Cost of small $ fundraising (inc. opp’y cost);– Benefits, Direct and 2º• Public $ obviously increases direct benefits• Indirect benefit = volunteers

• CFI’s research building on NIMSP data shows these incentives work – o Increases # small donors and donor diversity o Increases candidate dependence on small $

• No reason to believe any foreseeable changes will alter this.

• Real question is whether states will adopt.

What if no public $ in most places, 5-10 years?

Expanding small donors then depends on reducing fundraising costs through technology.

• As of now, favors big organizations with control over big data.

• Would that mean Ideological interest groups? Parties?

Answers not known. (Move to next policies)

Next policies:

Effects of Disclosure Rules and Constitutional Amendment

Conditions: Foreseeable Tech and Legal Boundary-Line Issues

(Technology first)

Personal Viewing Entertainment Now: Not the Old Model for Political Ads

By 2016

• Expect – not merely micro-targeting, but

• Personal targeting will start taking hold, using commercially available big data; –Delivered with your personally selected

content on whatever device, whenever.

They already do it for retail product. Why not for candidates?

This Will Push the Legal Boundaries

• Personally targeted ads are not “broadcast”

• If can target to the individual level, no reason not to use issue ads instead of “political”.

• These would put the ads outside of:– Any current disclosure proposal

• Lesson: expect > dark $. Can go further in Q&A– Any constitutional amendment to limit spending

Border btw Issue ads/politics: permeable; intractable

One Implication:

The carrot may do more than the stick.More effective to bring > people into system

than focus efforts on keeping $ out.

Growing more carrots

• Matching fund discussion earlier focused on the incentives for mobilizers.

• Participation theory suggests: also look at lowering participation costs.– Within 5-10 years, many exciting possibilities. – Why not unified gov’t website w registration forms,

video candidate guides, cf disclosure + link to every candidate’s website? If not gov’t, then private.

– Why not private wiki with dynamic archives of ads + articles and links for > info on dark money players?

Basic assumptions and conclusions:

• Lowering the knowledge barrier for participating will also

• Lower the mobilization costs for those mobilizing.

• Together, will increase and democratize financial and non-financial participation,

• With no constitutional risks– Reminder: Roberts Ct has upheld pub fin + disclosure

How important is it to start working on these incentives and barriers?

Answer: Depends what you see as the country’s major governing problem.

My personal view [not nec’ly CFI orgznl]. . .

Key Problem in Democratic Government = Governing for the grandchildren

One major Barrier in US: Negative power of entrenched interests on both right and left, Exercised through multiple veto points, Makes it difficult for public officials To accept short term political risksTo address long term national needs – Especially the needs of those who have little voice.

What is the Connection with CFR? (again in my view)

Engaging the public politically and

Giving the candidates funding alternatives to depending on the veto groups …

Are both parts of a process to free up a dialogue on these long-term issues.

Part of that dialogue should include:

• A future ecology (using RAND’s language) that will be robust enough in all parts – one missing piece weakens all others;

– Data – Scholars/Policy Analysts – Press – Advocates

• To enable one to see relationships behind veto points on both sides of policy spectrum;

– Even though legally required disclosure is likely to cover less of what need to know.

• And then – to explain the effects in terms that are personally meaningful to the voter. (Nick, Scott)

My ten minutes are up. Consider this as part of a long conversation...

. . . That we are starting here from 30,000 feet

above Glacier National Park.