“100 Ideas in 100 Days:” Society for the Rule of Law and the NYU Democracy Project
Society for the Rule of Law Members have joined in submitting timely pieces for the NYU Democracy Project’s 100 Ideas in 100 Days.
In order to combat hyper-partisanship and promote democratic engagement, the NYU Democracy Project has been publishing a cross-ideological series of articles from front rank leaders and thinkers, who advocate nuanced and diverse approaches on strengthening American representative government. Three Society for the Rule of Law members have been featured in this series.
Charter Member Jonathan Adler proposed reforming campaign finance in Help Legislators Legislate Again,
Adler cites campaign finance incentives as a major contributor to current legislative dysfunction. Congress is failing to perform its most critical duties. “Congress is failing at its most basic constitutional function: legislating… the regular process of lawmaking has largely ground to a halt.” In addition to political tribalism and societal divisions, modern campaign finance laws have significantly impeded representatives’ abilities to do their jobs. By capping donations at $3,500, these laws have forced legislators to expend significantly more time fundraising. “Federal campaign finance laws require legislators to fill their war chests primarily through small donations… representatives must reach exponentially more donors to raise equivalent funds…” The tactics of small-donation fundraising have qualitatively changed how successful legislators gain and retain public support. “The structure of small-dollar fundraising creates incentives that undermine effective governing. Smaller donors are often more tribal and ideological, and respond more readily to rage-bait and political posturing than to the quiet work of legislating.” Successful legislating requires relationship-building and bargaining. Yet the mass-media quirks of small donor fundraising distract representatives from these tasks. Small donors are, “more likely to contribute after seeing a viral social media clip or inflammatory TV interview than after learning about behind-the-scenes coalition-building.” Although additional social and structural issues are also at fault, campaign finance reform is important because, “making it easier for legislators to do their actual jobs is necessary if legislators want to legislate again.”
Read the rest of Jonathan’s piece here.
Charter Member Paul Rosenzweig urged a revamping of Congress’s representative structure in Pass the First Amendment Again.
During the passage of the Bill of Rights, the original “First Amendment” addressed the House of Representatives’ apportionment process. It would mandate continued adjustment of the House of Representatives proportionate to the national population, so that no legislator would represent more than 30,000 people. Although the amendment was not passed, Article 1 of the Bill of Rights has been affirmed by 12 states and has no expiration date. “The original concept behind the proposed amendment was to keep the House responsive to the people it represented.” James Madison thought that the lack of a provision increasing the size of Congress rendered the product “defective.” Rosenzweig cites Madison’s reservations, “that if the Congress did not increase in size as the country grew, the representatives: ‘will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents [and] they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many.’ Fed. No. 55.” Adopting the original Article I of the Bill of Rights would avert this outcome. This change would not only make representatives more responsive to local constituents, but also build valuable safeguards against egregious gerrymandering. “…The multiplication of representatives would make cartoon-like district drawing almost impossible.”
Read the rest of Paul’s piece here.
Executive Director Gregg Nunziata called for conservatives to rededicate themselves to democratic principles in “Why Conservatives Must Defend Liberal Democracy.”
He warns that much of the modern right has become “post-liberal,” and that some have even proposed “the need to seize the power of the state, in response to crises, real and imagined, to destroy the left. This isn’t only not conservatism; it imperils all that we, on the political right, value.” He reminds conservatives that liberal democracy has enabled many of their most cherished successes. “Our democracy has not failed conservatives; it has allowed conservative ideas- of family, faith, markets, and community- to thrive.” Compromising democratic principles in service to an autocratic agenda will remove the fundamentals that made conservative successes possible. “…Free enterprise cannot exist without the rule of law. Religious life cannot flourish when the state punishes disfavored expression. Tradition cannot endure when the government assaults and co-opts civil society.” We must rededicate ourselves to free discourse, limited government, and cultural traditions that facilitate a democratic society. “Conservatives must reject illiberal temptations and return to our own tradition, one that honors inheritance, prudence, and the hard work of persuasion. If we wish to conserve anything worth handing to future generations, we must begin by conserving liberal democracy itself.”
Read the full article here.
Read the full series here.
# # #