为民主剪剪优惠券:竞选资金券的平等主义/公共选择辩护

Richard L. Hasen
{"title":"为民主剪剪优惠券:竞选资金券的平等主义/公共选择辩护","authors":"Richard L. Hasen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1961263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article proposes a market-based alternative to our current unpopular regime for financing federal election campaigns. Under the proposal, each voter receives vouchers for federal elections to contribute either to candidates directly or to interest groups; with limited exceptions, only funds from the voucher system could be spent to support or oppose candidates for elected federal offices. Using public choice theory, Professor Hasen argues that the voucher plan would promote an egalitarian political market in which each person has roughly equal political capital regardless of preexisting disparities in wealth, education, or organizational ability. After demonstrating that the current campaign finance regime favors wealthy and well-organized interests at the expense of the poor and those with diffuse interests, the author identifies four distinct benefits of the voucher proposal. First, the voucher proposal minimizes the role of wealth in the political process and facilitates the organization of those individuals who currently lack political capital. Second, the proposal is likely to promote a stable transition to a more egalitarian political order and a more chaotic, though fairer, legislative process. Third, the voucher proposal's market orientation registers the intensity of voter preferences well. Finally, the proposal has a realistic chance of being enacted and of passing constitutional muster. The author concludes by demonstrating the superiority of the voucher plan under the four criteria to non-voucher public financing of Congressional campaigns, proportional representation, and group-based political solutions","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clipping Coupons for Democracy: An Egalitarian/Public Choice Defense of Campaign Finance Vouchers\",\"authors\":\"Richard L. Hasen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1961263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article proposes a market-based alternative to our current unpopular regime for financing federal election campaigns. Under the proposal, each voter receives vouchers for federal elections to contribute either to candidates directly or to interest groups; with limited exceptions, only funds from the voucher system could be spent to support or oppose candidates for elected federal offices. Using public choice theory, Professor Hasen argues that the voucher plan would promote an egalitarian political market in which each person has roughly equal political capital regardless of preexisting disparities in wealth, education, or organizational ability. After demonstrating that the current campaign finance regime favors wealthy and well-organized interests at the expense of the poor and those with diffuse interests, the author identifies four distinct benefits of the voucher proposal. First, the voucher proposal minimizes the role of wealth in the political process and facilitates the organization of those individuals who currently lack political capital. Second, the proposal is likely to promote a stable transition to a more egalitarian political order and a more chaotic, though fairer, legislative process. Third, the voucher proposal's market orientation registers the intensity of voter preferences well. Finally, the proposal has a realistic chance of being enacted and of passing constitutional muster. The author concludes by demonstrating the superiority of the voucher plan under the four criteria to non-voucher public financing of Congressional campaigns, proportional representation, and group-based political solutions\",\"PeriodicalId\":83406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of California, Davis law review\",\"volume\":\"87 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of California, Davis law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1961263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of California, Davis law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1961263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

摘要

本文提出了一种基于市场的替代方案,以取代目前不受欢迎的联邦竞选筹资机制。根据该提案,每位选民都将收到联邦选举的代金券,可以直接向候选人或利益集团捐款;除了有限的例外情况,只有来自代金券制度的资金才能用于支持或反对当选联邦公职的候选人。利用公共选择理论,哈森教授认为,代金券计划将促进一个平等主义的政治市场,在这个市场中,每个人都拥有大致相等的政治资本,而不考虑之前在财富、教育或组织能力方面存在的差距。在证明了当前的竞选资金制度有利于富人和组织良好的利益集团,而牺牲了穷人和利益分散者的利益之后,作者确定了代金券提案的四个明显好处。首先,代金券提案最大限度地减少了财富在政治过程中的作用,并促进了那些目前缺乏政治资本的个人的组织。其次,该提案可能会促进向更平等的政治秩序和更混乱(但更公平)的立法程序的稳定过渡。第三,代金券提案的市场导向很好地记录了选民偏好的强度。最后,该提案有一个现实的机会被颁布并通过宪法审查。作者最后论证了四个标准下的代金券计划相对于国会竞选、比例代表制和基于群体的政治解决方案的非代金券公共融资的优越性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clipping Coupons for Democracy: An Egalitarian/Public Choice Defense of Campaign Finance Vouchers
This Article proposes a market-based alternative to our current unpopular regime for financing federal election campaigns. Under the proposal, each voter receives vouchers for federal elections to contribute either to candidates directly or to interest groups; with limited exceptions, only funds from the voucher system could be spent to support or oppose candidates for elected federal offices. Using public choice theory, Professor Hasen argues that the voucher plan would promote an egalitarian political market in which each person has roughly equal political capital regardless of preexisting disparities in wealth, education, or organizational ability. After demonstrating that the current campaign finance regime favors wealthy and well-organized interests at the expense of the poor and those with diffuse interests, the author identifies four distinct benefits of the voucher proposal. First, the voucher proposal minimizes the role of wealth in the political process and facilitates the organization of those individuals who currently lack political capital. Second, the proposal is likely to promote a stable transition to a more egalitarian political order and a more chaotic, though fairer, legislative process. Third, the voucher proposal's market orientation registers the intensity of voter preferences well. Finally, the proposal has a realistic chance of being enacted and of passing constitutional muster. The author concludes by demonstrating the superiority of the voucher plan under the four criteria to non-voucher public financing of Congressional campaigns, proportional representation, and group-based political solutions
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Highways and Side Roads of Statistical Capacity Building How COVID-19 Changed Our Saving Habits? O EFÊMERO PASSEIO DOS PATINETES ELÉTRICOS NO BRASIL (The Ephemeral Ride of Electric Scooters in Brazil) No Panic in Pandemic: The Impact of Individual Choice on Public Health Policy and Vaccine Priority Merger Breakups
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1