Ken Block, ideological stringency and the People’s Pledge
I read with interest Ken Block’s
rejection of the
People’s Pledge on the following basis:
“I
support comprehensive campaign-finance reform,” Block said. “But I won’t do it
piecemeal.” And a People’s Pledge wouldn’t address the disadvantage he’d face
against incumbents such as Raimondo, “who has spent three full years as
treasurer raising money for this race,” he said.
Something
similar to “I won’t do it piecemeal” is a common refrain I hear among
supporters of change or reform; most notably among left-wing opponents of the
ACA (it didn’t go far enough!). I have no desire to rehash that particular
battle, but suffice it to say, we have to deal in political realities, not
political desires.
The
argument that the Pledge is piecemeal is particularly flimsy. Citzen’s United has made the goals of the
campaign-finance reform movement relatively unachievable; the striking down of
McCain-Feingold’s section of unlimited corporate and union spending has made
so-called “dark money” an increasing reality in all campaigns. And the People’s
Pledge is proven to work at reducing that dark money spending.
Ideological
stringency can be well and good. Refusing to support something over a matter of
principle can be quite admirable. Opposing things as not going far enough when
they would be ineffective or damaging is sensible. But this is neither of those
cases. The Pledge notably advances the campaign-finance reform movement’s goals
while providing proof to skeptical citizens that reform has an impact.
Furthermore, while Block’s support of reform is proven and well-known, his
ability to get it passed is non-existent. Democratic efforts, notably those
under Rep. Chris Blazejewski, have been far more successful (unsurprisingly),
though they often run into First Amendment issues and sometimes work
indiscriminately when a targeted approach is called for.
One
factor gone unsung in this is that the People’s Pledge has been a defining
issue of the Democratic primary campaign, I think largely because the
campaign-finance reform movement in the Democratic Party is far greater than
that in the Republican Party (which is next to non-existent as far as I know).
Block’s refusal to support it keeps him from supporting a “Democratic” issue,
but also gives him space to keep up his usual attack line of the
“ineffectiveness” of Democratic policies. However, it also provides the opening
for Block’s primary opponent Allan Fung from having to take a stand on the
Pledge one way or the other until the general election (should he beat Block,
which seems likely).
As
a final thought, Block’s criticism of Raimondo rings hollow. After all, what
are we to believe Block was doing for the last three years, not preparing to run for governor?