A revival of mediating institutions, whether at the local, state, or national level, will mitigate the
deleterious and alienating effects of modern, technology-based politicking. They also have the
potential to improve the functioning of government itself. But this will only happen if government
officials dare to share their power, and everyday citizens dare to care about their own civic
obligations.
Recommendation 2: Reform Political Campaigns to Encourage Broader Participation. Polling,
advertising, focus groups, direct mail – all of these methods of political communication are here
to stay, as are the legions of professional campaign generals who deploy them. We therefore urge
civic-minded politicians, and perhaps private donors, to turn these campaign practices to good
use. Instead of exploiting voter psychology to keep people from participating, campaigns must
dare to find methods and messages that excite people about democratic engagement. Visionary
campaigners from John F. Kennedy to John McCain have shown that there is no downside to
awakening dormant voters – there are only benefits.
Just as modern campaign technology is a permanent fixture of politics, so too is money.
Campaigns and political parties cannot function without the bucks to pay the bills. Clearly,
however, financial capital is playing far too great a role, and social capital far too small a role, in
determining who gets heard. Most Americans believe that only the wealthy interests count, and
that money has hopelessly corrupted and warped policy making. We therefore endorse efforts,
such as those being led by the National Voting Rights Institute and Public Campaign, to limit the
role of money in politics. For example, we support constitutional challenges to the  “wealth
primary,” the system by which only those with access to big money are able to prevail in primary
campaigns. We also urge all states to pass  “clean elections” laws, such as those in Maine and
Vermont, that provide public funds to state candidates who reject special-interest money and
agree to campaign spending limits. At the national level, we advocate expanding the current
public financing system, which only covers Presidential candidates, to candidates for Congress, as
well. Finally, we recommend closing the legal loophole that allows unlimited  “soft money”
donations to political parties. We recommend that contributions to parties – both the source of the
funds and the amount – be limited just as the law already limits contributions to candidates.
While not every one of us would give the same enthusiastic support to every one of these
initiatives, collectively we believe that these recommendations will increase participation for
three reasons. First, by reducing the influence of wealthy interests, Americans might again believe
that participation is worth their while and decide to get involved as campaign volunteers and letter
writers and voters. Second, by making it harder for parties to rely on a relatively small cadre of
wealthy donors, these reforms will force parties to reconnect with everyday citizens by soliciting
small donations. Third, by making television advertising and other costly technologies harder to
afford, these reforms would, ideally, provide incentives for the parties to revive good, old-
fashioned, inexpensive shoe-leather organizing.
Recommendation 3: Offer Civil Society Support Without Coercion. We endorse a broad range of
efforts, many already in place, that use the comparative advantages of government to strengthen
voluntary institutions. Such efforts include government agency liaisons to voluntary groups;
Mayor’s, Governor’s and President’s awards for social capital building initiatives; and Internet
access to government information and decision-making bodies. We also urge that government