Bob Bauer offers a grounded and pragmatic new take on how to think about the pros/cons of further deregulating campaign finance to permit more efficient party coordination. I am generally skeptical that bolstering the financial position of party leaders in elections will moderate politics, and still I found myself pausing (even persuaded) by several of his arguments. I encourage everyone–especially skeptics–to read Baur’s own words. But here, in my words, are some of his key points:
A point about principle:
- Focusing on the impact of barriers to party coordination with respect to unions (membership-based civic groups rather than billionaires and megadonors) clarifies how “coordination” rules genuinely burden the right of association: the ability of the party network to act in concert to achieve common political goals, for the party membership to coordinate with the formal party.
At least two points about realism:
- These restrictions on party coordination impede efficiency far more than the volume of party spending for its candidates. As he writes, “The coordination rules impede efficient, unlimited party spending but do not prevent it altogether.”
- In an era of hyper-polarization and tepid commitment to the rule of law, there are significant risks that rules such as the coordination rule will be used to suppress the opposition seeking to challenge those who hold power–to prevent democratic change. In such times, we need the most absolute/robust versions of our First Amendment rights.
