Serious problems call for serious solutions

With the Abramoff and DeLay corruption scandals have come proposed "reforms" by both Dems and GOPers in Congress. As Nick Nyhart says,

There is much to cheer in these sets of reform proposals. If the matter at hand is how to decrease the ability of lobbyists to provide lifestyle enhancements to members of Congress in return for policy favors, these reforms offer an answer. If the key question is how to protect the political and policy process from abuses of power by majority party legislative leaders, these measures also have much to offer. But, if the larger dilemma is how to ensure that the concerns of ordinary Americans are well represented in a decision-making process currently dominated by wealthy vested interests, the most recent round of reforms being offered inside the Beltway falls remarkably short.

NyHart isn't the only one voicing deep skepticism that either party's inside-the-beltway proposals will appreciably change things. David Sirota and Hilary Rosen, a former lobbyist herself, have explained why Democratic proposals fall woefully short of real reform.

Poll after poll has shown that the public sees both parties as more or less equally corrupt, at least insofar as it relates to each party's Congressional delegations. And I have to believe that a huge reason for that, even though what we're seeing right now is uniformly GOP corruption, is the lame proposals coming from Dems in DC. Returning for a moment to Nyhart,

Nothing in the current set of proposals disrupts the larger pay-to-play dynamic in which money-laden special interests supply the cash required to run a modern political campaign in return for public policy that satisfies their needs. The scope of this practice significantly affects the lives of most Americans on issues ranging from healthcare to taxation, from energy policy to environmental concerns. As a start, Congress should consider banning or sharply restricting the flow of lobbyist political money to lawmakers. After all, if a free lunch is deemed inappropriate, then surely tens of thousands of dollars in bundled campaign contributions present a much greater conflict.

So what we're really talking about here is campaign finance reform. But exactly how to best do that and whether certain approaches are constitutional (Buckley v. Valeo) has been hotly contested for some time now. Public Agenda lists the three main approaches to campaign finance reform:

• One perspective argues that special interests should be kept at bay by public campaign funding for politicians who accept voluntary limits on spending - and tough rules on political gifts and lobbying to prevent special interests from subverting the public interest.


• Another approach says the only way to reduce money's corrupting influence is by increasing citizens' access, influence, and power using term limits to keep politicians on a shorter leash, ballot measures to let more voters enact laws when legislators can't or won't, and greater publc information and participation via the Internet.


• A third approach says reform efforts have backfired. To revive democracy, we need more money for competitive campaigns and less regulation to ease fundraising. Let people give whatever they want, but require full and fast disclosure of donations to deter corruption and conflicts of interest.

Of those three I find the first one to be the most likely to accomplish something, but it's the one with the gravest constitutional questions. The second one has merit too in as much as it pertains to ballot initiatives. But term limits are nothing more than a cop-out by voters in my view... a way to avoid taking responsibility for their own voting patterns. And the third seems farcical on it's face.

This Old House has long been one of my favorite shows on TV. Yesterday's show focused in part on an $18,000 solution to the homeowner's very serious backyard drainage problems. When Kevin O'Connor, the host, questioned Roger Cook, the landscape contractor, on such a huge price tag Roger Cook's reply was, "serious problems call for serious solutions."

I would like to propose an alternative solution, or perhaps co-solution, to the pay-to-play dynamic: A Congressional Taxpayer'sOmbudsman (see also Merriam Webster's definition).

Many states have ombudsman to represent the rights of at-risk consumers such as nursing home residents. Even the IRS has a Taxpayer Advocate which as an independent agency within the IRS works to represent taxpayer's rights within the IRS system. But the Taxpayer Advocate's job goes beyond individual cases to include Systemic Advocacy.

The role of Systemic Advocacy is evident in the TAS mission statement: "As an independent organization within the IRS, we help taxpayers resolve problems within the IRS and recommend changes that will prevent the problems." This means we try to repair systemic flaws in the IRS and the tax code, which can cause trouble for taxpayers and IRS employees alike.

Why not a Taxpayers Ombudsman as an independent agency within Congress along similar lines?

I'm quite confident that most of those who view both sides of the aisle in Congress as corrupt would accept the proposition that the vast majority on The Hill start out with the best of intentions only to be corrupted somewhere along the way, as evidenced by the popularity of term-limiting politicians. A Taxpayer's Ombudsman within Congress modeled along the lines of the IRS Taxpayer's Advocate could, to paraphrase the previous quote, try to repair systemic flaws which can cause trouble for taxpayers and members of Congress alike. Even if the SCOTUS were to strike down some of the most promising systemic fixes, just possessing the authority and directive to continually shine a light on potential corruption in Congress ought to make an Ombudsman agency a worthwhile undertaking.

Serious problems call for serious solutions.