American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Why is it that only 14 percent of Americans approve of Congress, but over 95 percent of incumbents are reelected? The answer is that incumbents have significant advantages over their challengers, particularly in the availability of campaign funds. One of the principal reasons is that political parties ... (more)are limited in the funding they can provide to their candidates. In the 2008 elections, permissible party contributions were about 1 percent of the cost of elections to the House and Senate. This did not hurt incumbents, who have many sources of campaign funds and many ways to enhance their name recognition, but it severely limits the financial resources available to challengers. The media regularly report on the funds poured into campaigns by party committees but rarely note that virtually all this spending is limited to independent activities, uncoordinated with the candidates and often counterproductive. In Better Parties, Better Government, AEI’s Peter J. Wallison, former White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and Brooklyn Law School’s Joel M. Gora, former legal counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that only one significant change in our campaign finance laws -- eliminating the spending restrictions on parties -- will turn our elections into the competitive contests they should be in a democracy.

That government policies have "unintended consequences" is a staple of both political rhetoric and policy analysis. In its strongest form, the argument is that policy consequences are not only unintended but perverse--they make the problems they address worse rather than better. These arguments are pervasive, ... (more)but are they simply rhetorical conventions, or is something more systematic involved? In this Bradley Lecture, Christopher DeMuth argues that policy failure is a fundamental attribute of modern government and politics. When government intervenes in an economic market or other private arrangement to achieve a preconceived result, the tools at its disposal are limited and easily overwhelmed by the compensating reactions of individuals and firms. This problem is as severe as the information problem made famous by F. A. Hayek. Moreover, the political process, in fashioning compromises among the interests of supporters and opponents, frequently generates policies that are more flaccid and porous than other policies at the government's disposal. Where, as is often the case, effective policy would be costly and disruptive and policy effectiveness inherently difficult to gauge, the result is "intended non-consequences." Christopher DeMuth is the D. C. Searle Senior Fellow at AEI, where he studies government regulation, U.S. politics, and culture. He was the president of AEI from December 1986 through December 2008. Previously, Mr. DeMuth was administrator for information and regulatory affairs in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and executive director of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief in the Reagan administration; taught economics, law, and regulatory policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; practiced regulatory, antitrust, and general corporate law; and worked on urban and environmental policy in the Nixon White House. Accredited media please register through Veronique Rodman at vrodman@aei.org.

Since the late 1980s, state court judges across the country have derived authority from the "education clauses" of their state constitutions, deemed state funding for K–12 schools inadequate, and required states to channel vast new sums into education. The underlying assumption is that more resources ... (more)will lead to better outcomes. Indeed, increased funding has led to additional programs and personnel and to new and improved facilities--but has it led to commensurate gains in student achievement? If not, what would it take for these investments to deliver? Stanford University's Eric A. Hanushek and Alfred A. Lindseth, a senior partner in the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, will discuss these and related questions, drawing from their recent volume, Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses: Solving the Funding-Achievement Puzzle in America's Public Schools (Princeton University Press, 2009). Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, will offer a response. AEI's director of education policy studies Frederick M. Hess will moderate.