Following politics in another country can be interesting because you can see how similar issues are handled in other countries. Also, reading about another country can help you better understand how things could be handled differently in your own country.
For example, people on both sides of the health care debate often talk about what is happening in other countries to support their position in the United States. But those kind of one-off references are not really helpful and may not even be accurate. To make meaningful comparisons you have to really read about another country, so you can understand them and understand how their experiences may be of use to the United States.
For reasons not relevant here, I read a fair amount about New Zealand. An issue has popped up in New Zealand recently that is of interest in the United States. Let me explain.
First, it is important to understand that New Zealand, like England, does not have a written constitution. Instead, the New Zealand Parliament reigns supreme. In fact, New Zealand does not even have a second house (like England’s House of Lords) to provide a little bit of second thought.
In New Zealand’s 2005 election (they have elections every three years), seven members of a relatively secretive religious group called the Exclusive Brethren spent $1,000,000 to try to help the National Party (the more conservative party) beat the Labour Party, which was in power. Labour won re-election, barely, but they were, to say the least, mad and they promised (threatened – ?) reforms to the election laws.*
With only one year to go before the next election, the Labour Party finally presented its proposals. First, the period during which spending is regulated was changed from the three-month period before an election to the entire period from January 1 of the year in which an election is held to the date of the election. While the period was extended (potentially a lot since elections are often held in October or November), the limits on spending by a political party were kept the same. Since the government will know when it is going to call an election and the opposition does not, this gives an advantage to the party in power. Also, one can see how the spending limits will restrict the challenger more than the incumbent since the party in power will almost certainly be able to figure out some way to claim they are merely using public monies to "explain" and "inform" people about government programs and policies.
The new rules on spending by non-political party groups (called "third parties") are even worse. Third parties are to be allowed to spend only $60,000 on in an election year on "election advertising," which itself is given a definition so broad that it basically covers almost all public policy advocacy efforts. The amount is so low, the equivalent of two or three full-page newspaper ads, that it will greatly reduce the amount of policy-related advocacy by third parties in an election year.** The proposals also require third parties to forfeit any anonymous donation over $500 while allowing political parties to accept anonymous donations in any amount.
Because New Zealand has no written constitution, if Labour’s original proposals were passed, there would be no recourse, other than to try to change the law. (Of course, with our Supreme Court approving McCain-Feingold, a written constitution is not as much protection as one might have expected.)
When objections were raised, Labour responded that it was no big deal. They were always expecting the proposals to go to a Parliamentary select committee and the problems could be addressed there. Of course, Labour did not explain why they did not try to fix the problems before introducing the bill.
Which raises the question: Was the Labour Party just sloppy, failing to think through what they were proposing? Or did they deliberately propose the bill as it was figuring that (i) even with changes, they might still get more (in terms on restrictions on what independent groups and opposition parties could do and spend in an election) than they might otherwise get and (ii) it might just slip through, and if it didn’t, choice (i) would still be there.
All of which raises the point: How can we trust foxes (i.e., politicians) to protect the hen house (i.e., our democracy and our right to free speech) from the foxes (i.e., the politicians themselves)?
Fine, you say, but what does this have to do with the United States. The point is the same things happen here. As I mentioned previously, in 2004 when the Democrats thought Section 527 organizations would help the Republicans, they tried to restrict them, and the Republicans protested, claiming were trying to protect free speech. In 2005, after 527s spent more money supporting John Kerry than they did supporting President Bush, the Republicans tried to restrict 527s and it was the Democrats who posed as defenders of free speech. This was like New Zealand, with each party proposing changes to the election laws that would help it and hurt its opponents.
In the case of the attempts to put limits on 527s, the competition between the Republicans and Democrats worked to defeat the proposed restrictions. The differing interests of the parties in New Zealand may be working to stop the more egregious provisions of the new proposals. However, we cannot always rely on competition between the parties to protect us. In New Zealand, one theory about the design of Labour’s proposals is that Labour hoped National might go along with the restrictions on third party spending because Labour’s proposal allowed anonymous contributions to political parties (which is how National gets much of its money) to continue*** and because National might figure it would appreciate the law’s tilt toward the incumbent when it gets back in office.
The same thing happens in the United States. While the parties compete in some areas, in others they conspire with each other against the public. When it came time to redraw the boundaries for Illinois’ congressional districts after the 2000 census, the parties did not try to figure out a way to gain an advantage. Rather, the incumbent congressmen got together and drew up a map with boundaries that protected each of them – from the voters. And, except for one district, where the incumbent Republican failed to retire when he should have, it has worked for the congressmen and against a choice for the voters.
Similarly, does anybody think the earmark "reforms" that Congress recently passed by margins rivaling elections in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, are anything more than an attempt by both parties to make the voters think they are reforming things when really they are not?
For that matter, aren’t the McCain-Feingold "reforms" more about making it harder for challengers and third parties to criticize incumbents in the period before an election than protecting the election process from corruption?
The fact is, just as you cannot expect the foxes to protect the hen house, we should not expect politicians to protect our rights, at least when those rights include criticizing politicians. There are too many politicians who have convinced themselves that protecting the system from corruption means passing laws that effectively protect them from being criticized.
Those in favor of limiting campaign spending and limiting or even prohibiting certain kinds of speech before an election claim they are trying to protect democracy and our freedoms from the corruption and unfairness of too much money. But that is backwards. Free speech, including the right to criticize politicians, especially before elections, is the best thing that we the people have to protect our democracy and our freedoms from the politicians.
-------------------
* Labour’s anger was somewhat hypocritical since they themselves were found to have violated the spending laws during the 2005 election. Each party in Parliament gets an amount of money to use for member and party support purposes. The money is not, however, to be used for campaigning. Labour used $446,000 of its money to print and distribute a pledge card showing a picture of Prime Minister Helen Clark, the words "My commitments to you," a list of seven policies Labour said it would introduce if it was reelected, and the Labour Party logo. Somehow Labour claimed this was not electioneering, even though the Auditor-General said before the election that it would be improper to spend the money for these cards. Labour’s defense was that they had done it before, so the Auditor-General was changing the rules – apparently by enforcing the law.
** If you are interested in more detail on these proposals, see, inter alia, Kiwiblog here.
*** As I said, for some reason New Zealand allows anonymous contributions to political parties.
Comments