In 2002, Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold succeeded in passing their bipartisan finance reform bill, limiting the contributions by large donors to any political party or candidate.
In principle, the passage of the bill was a victory for electoral integrity, restoring more power to lower- and middle-class donors in support of political candidates and causes. In practice, it had just the opposite effect.
According to the Washington Post, money that had once gone to the national parties was redirected to political action committees, leaving the party leadership with less resources and less motivation to recruit and encourage grassroots participation. As it turns out, the parties previously had a moderating effect on partisanship by needing to achieve some degree of interparty consensus. Independent advocacy groups have no such compunctions.
Consequently, the effect of finance reform was to marginalize the moderates and give even more influence to big money players—exactly the opposite of what was intended.
Hindsight is 20/20, and unintended consequences are inevitable. When we see systemic problems and want to correct them, should we do our best to implement solutions knowing they might backfire, or should we leave well enough alone and make peace with the devil we know?
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons why the finance reform law was worth trying.
List two or three reasons why the sponsors of the bill should have left well enough alone.
Were there any other options?
Having weighed the options, as a lawmaker how would you have made your decision?
Gray Matters
In the year 70, the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman legions after a protracted siege of the city. According to Jewish history, the spark that ignited the fury of Rome was kindled by a disgruntled Jew named Bar Kamtza who slandered his own people by accusing the sages of inciting rebellion against the occupying government.
As events unfolded, the sages learned of the danger Bar Kamtza posed and held counsel to determine how they might stop his intrigue. Although one proposal after another was put forth to prevent the approaching apocalypse, one of the sages, Rabbi Zechariah, raised an objection to each. As a result, the sages failed to take any action whatsoever. Bar Kamtza’s plot succeeded, the Roman army descended, and Jerusalem was destroyed.
Rabbi Zechariah’s objections were reasonable and well-founded. Nevertheless, later generations blamed him for the destruction of the Temple, even more than Bar Kamtza and more than the Romans themselves. By prolonging the debate, while failing to offer any practical alternative, Rabbi Zechariah paralyzed the high council of sages and guaranteed that all the suffering that befell the nation would follow.
In other words, there are always good reasons not to take action. But no decision is also a decision; and it’s often a worse choice than a wrong decision.
Consider the Bill and Melinda Gates Global Fund, which has seen tremendous success eliminating malaria, measles, and AIDS from sub-Saharan Africa. While accomplishing its goals, the high-profile project has had the unintended consequence of drawing medical experts away from less glamorous positions, at times leaving laypeople responsible for education, triage, and low-level nursing, especially in rural areas. A lack of basic supplies not covered by the fund has resulted in avoidable tragedies.
More recently, the release of sterilized mosquitoes has some scientists worried about unpredictable environmental effects.
So was the Gates Foundation wrong to attempt eliminating disease?
Of course not. Nevertheless, these stories serve as cautionary tales against attempting to play God. The FDA has often been criticized for its overcautious approach to releasing new drugs and treatment. But that conservative approach saved countless American children in the 1950s from the side effects of thalidomide, an innovative morning sickness drug responsible for horrific birth defects in 10,000 European babies.
Like every other application of ethics, sincere and well-reasoned balance between action and caution must guide medical and legislative intervention. Unintended consequences are inevitable. The question will always be whether we have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid them, rather than rushing impetuously into action or wringing our hands over our inability to act.