We need more than just campaign-finance reform. We need completecampaign reform.

The Problem

Americans have become very dependent on technology. We readily embrace most of theadvances our scientific and medical know-how have brought us, although we sometimes needto make an effort to really use this new technology. But for some reason we have avoidedbecoming participants in our own governing processes.

Two areas where we've decided to invest time and maintain control over our lives are:

• Most of us know that we need to take our cars in for service every 3,000 to6,000 miles. The service facilities even put a little decal somewhere on our car to remindus. We don't get upset at that - we do it.

• Most of us go to the dentist at least twice a year. Dental science tells us weneed to do that in order to preserve our teeth for the longest possible time.

The dental checkup is just one of a series of good ideas we have adopted to protect ourhealth. A thorough physical every five years until you get as old as I am, then morefrequently. Women are encouraged to get periodic mammograms.

We're all willing, more or less, to dedicate a certain amount of time to maintainingour cars, our teeth, our general health. Each of these tasks individually adds up to maybe3-4 hours per year, and costs us $50 to $500.

So why aren't we committing 3-4 hours a year to selecting our elected officials?

Much as I'd like to leave that question hanging out there as a rhetorical one, I thinkI owe it to you to give you my answer, and let you decide how close it is to the truth.

We don't spend 3-4 hours investigating the candidates, and supporting our choices, justbecause we just don't think it's worth it.

We don't trust politicians any more than they trust themselves. You can't have ameaningful, soul-searching talk with a politician for five minutes without hearing,"Well, you know. Politics is just the art of the possible; we all have tocompromise."

That's true, we do . . . often. But each of us knows there are rock-solid principlesand values that we cannot, should not compromise. When candidates have learned they can'tget away with trying to be 'all things to all people', we'll have gone a long way towardcampaign reform. A $5 million TV-ad campaign full of clever, half-true sound bites is awaste of time if everyone knows the ads are meaningless.

One problem we have today is that we, the people, have built a fence around politicians(probably with good reason). We don't let them communicate directly with us, except maybeat a special "Meet the Candidates" forum, where each one makes a speech abouthating crime, lowering taxes, and improving education . . . you hear one, you've heardthem all.

The only other communications we get from politicians are junk mail, TV sound-bite ads,and phone calls interrupting dinner. No wonder we get fed up with the political process.We need to establish other ways to help ourselves understand the issues, communicate withthe candidates to sound them out, and select the most honest and capable among them.

The Proposals

Mechanically, I think that there are three areas we ought to explore, in order toenhance and improve campaigns. They are:

• •Improved public awareness
• •Finance reform to encourage greater average citizen participation
• •Changing the laws which discourage participation.
  

Let's talk briefly about each of these.

Improving Public Awareness

The easiest way I can see to achieve greater public awareness is to take back, for thepeople some of the public franchise which we have licensed to the electronic mass media.

A public spirited entrepreneur in southern California has just announced that he willgive away free commercial time to all political candidates in the areas he services.That's a great idea, but not one which I think the media in general will voluntarilyadopt.

What I propose is to take back Tuesday nights in October. I believe that everycandidate, for every office should be granted equal time, using all prime time hours onall networks, and local stations, every Tuesday in the October before elections. We cancall it Civics 101, and we can all grouse about it, and wish we were watching Mary TylerMoore reruns, but the talk at work the next day will be about politics, and candidates,and, we will, in spite of ourselves, become better informed, and more active in theprocess. Does this plan need some fleshing out? Sure, it does. But it's a framework onwhich to build.

Campaign Finance Reform

One interesting proposal I've seen dealing with finance reform involves giving greaterbuying power to the small contributor's dollar. This would be accomplished by an oversightorganization, probably within the government (maybe FEC) which collects taxes from thecandidates on contributions over a certain amount, let's say $1,000. The money which iscollected in that fashion is distributed, as a bonus, on a basis pro-rated by all thesmall contributions made back to the candidates. That means that, not only does thecandidate not have to pay this 'tax' on smaller contributions, by encouraging them, andreporting them completely, he also gains additional funds. Such a system would allow uscontrols to apply to encourage the average citizen's financial participation, anddiscourage the special interests who clearly now control the election process.

Re-setting the Rules

The hardest change to make in campaigning and the election process in the United Statesis addressing that myriad of election details that have been made law over the years whichclearly discourage greater participation in the process. I honestly believe that very fewof our citizens realize how difficult it is to run for office these days. I certainlydidn't know all of the obstacles which the law puts in the path of a citizen who thinks hehas something to say, and wants to be a public servant.

First, to become a candidate, you either pay 3% of the annual salary of the officeyou're seeking to the Republican or Democratic party (Yes, that's right - you pay thepolitical party for the right to run), or you seek an impossibly large number ofcertifiable voter signatures from the electorate. This is not right, and is as good anexample as you need, to realize that the lawmakers have used their lawmaking powers toprovide themselves with job security, to the detriment of democracy.

When we see that 81% of the registered voters in the German Republic participated intheir September election, and we take note that in our September special election in CobbCounty, we were barely above 20%, we need to ask if that means the German people are moreinterested in democracy than we are. I hope not. But the German Government did have thegood sense to schedule their election on Sunday, to minimize the conflict with theircitizens' jobs. What keeps us from doing that?

One of the things which keeps us from doing that is just what I mentioned earlier - thelawmakers' desire to have their own job security. If they know they can always get out5,000 voters to support them, then it's clearly in their best interests to make itdifficult for those citizens who are not in the incumbents' pocket to come out to vote.That appears to be the reason that the Cobb County School Board spent almost $200,000 fora special election during the summer, rather than wait an extra month for the regularelection. They knew they could get out their tax supporters, and that most everyone elsewas off on vacation, or otherwise occupied. Folks, that's an impermissible influence onthe election process that is apparently currently legal; it should be outlawed.

The details go on and on. The Cobb County Election Board decided to paraphrase thechanged law for voter identification. One part of the new law would take more time at thepolls by the poll workers, and their paraphrase discouraged that part of the new law,along the way maybe discouraging some voters from even going to the polls.

The Result

But how do we find capable, honest candidates, so we can vote them in and the rascalsout? The answer is deceptively sim-ple, but painfully hard to do. We just do it.

We remember how we felt about Presidents and Senators, Generals and Admirals - all ofour heroes - when we were kids. We should pick candidates who aren't so bloodied andbeaten by years of compromise that they've forgotten what it means to have a core ofunchanging principles, and a map of goals - national and personal.

Maybe we will get lucky the first time. Maybe we'll find someone of fair intelligencewith nothing to lose - willing to restore meaning to the phrase 'public servant', tocommit two years of his or her life to representing the citizens who elected him or her.If it doesn't happen the first time, we keep on keepin' on - and sooner or later we willelect a smart, honest representative focused on serving his or her constituents.

That may be all it will take. Just as we submit to six-month dental exams because we'veseen the good it does, when we see one representative who doesn't buy or sell the office,who sees voting based on conscience as a vital part of representing his or herconstituents - when our representative takes the time to explain to us what's going on,and what's about to go on, and whom we can believe - then we'll see the benefits of payingattention to whom we're electing.

When we do that, it'll be contagious . . . particularly if Americans across the countrycan see that it's not just a question of the one who spends the most money winning therace. When we, the people, win a high-visibility race, the issue of participatorydemocracy will become as real to us here on the verge of the 21st Century as it was to theframers of our Constitution in the 18^th.

Summary

And what else is there to want from campaign reform? We will have done it withoutviolating any First Amendment rights and without siphoning off hundreds of millions ofdollars from the economy for flashy TV spots and polls to decide what traditionalpoliticians 'ought' to say . . . not to be right, but to be elected.

That's my idea of campaign reform. But most of it is up to you; all I can do about itis to give you the chance to stand up on your hind legs and do it with me.