Bill is right that legislative outputs merit greater scrutiny than legislative inputs. I’d rather Congress be financed by the Nazi Party and produce a utopia than be financed by utopians and produce a fascist society. But Bill overstates the point; how legislators spend our money may be more important than how they spend their time or how their campaigns are financed, but that does not mean that this additional information is irrelevant. Quite the contrary—transparency oftentimes uniquely illuminates an official’s political propensities.
Take the typical American voter. He does not examine each and every one of his Senator’s floor votes before deciding whether to vote for her again, nor should we expect him to do so. There is only so much time in a day, and it is perfectly rational to eschew acquiring an in-depth political education (let’s set aside whether or not it is rational to vote). But without this seemingly vital information, how can he make his decision?
In all likelihood, Mr. Regular American will vote for his preferred major party. If he leans Republican, he’ll vote for the Republican; if prefers Democrats, he’ll vote for the Democrat. He does this because, having determined that one party better reflects his overall policy preferences, he can save considerable time by using party affiliation as a proxy for the candidate’s actual record and/or platform. Some candidates will be atypical for their parties, but, on the whole, parties roughly match the preferences of their voters.
Now, though the party system provides information by proxy, it does not provide complete and perfect information. And more information means a better-informed vote. That’s where political transparency comes in—it provides issue-specific proxy information. Wondering what specific policy proposals a candidate has in mind when he denounces the educational achievement gap? If his campaign receives considerable funding from the NEA and the AFT, you should not expect school choice to be among them. Hear an incumbent rail against violence in the inner city? If her calendar is booked with NRA meetings, don’t expect a new gun control bill.
While not perfectly illuminating, such information provides better direction than simple party affiliation. Memorizing each and every Congressional Record, Committee Report, and bill sponsorship might yield a better picture, but no one (except maybe George Stephanopoulos) is going to do that. Politician transparency provides a happy medium.
Two other benefits to transparency: first, single-issue voters can better rest assured that their candidates reflect their own views. For an ardent pro-lifer, voting for the GOP candidate might usually prove safe, but pro-choice Republicans are far from unheard of. Should a candidate spend much of his time glad-handing NARAL leaders, the voter will know to opt for an alternative.
Secondly, legislative inputs can provide particularly helpful guidance even before a candidate has served in office. Without a voting record to scrutinize, the only major alternative sources of information are party affiliation (which, as discussed, can be overly broad) and campaign promises (which, even when not utterly vague, are frequently jettisoned upon the election). In such cases, campaign financing and calendar space might be the best predictors of future allegiance.
True, transparency is not a panacea. Neither, for that matter, is any good medicine. But in a free society, we should err on the side of openness.
No Comments