|
rm, that takes
politics out of the hands of special interests. It is designed to
level the political playing field between incumbents and challengers,
attract more candidates, save money that would otherwise be spent
on behalf of special interests, and restore public confidence in
government.
Under this law, for example, any citizen can qualify for $24,000
in public funds to run for state representative by first collecting
200 contributions, each less than $100, and agreeing to a total
spending limit of $30,000. (By comparison, incumbents in 1998 spent
an average of $35,000 and, in the relatively few contested races,
challengers spent an average of $18,000.)
Public funding, which is capped at one-tenth of 1 percent of
the state budget and does not increase tax rates, amounts to $3.20
per resident a year. The $45 million scheduled to be spent on
elections in 2002 represents a five-fold increase in current campaign
spending because public funding is expected to attract so many more
candidates.
The reform, which takes effect in 2002, is similar to ones
recently enacted in Arizona, Vermont, and Maine. In one form or
another, regulatory reform or public funding of election campaigns
is currently being considered in 30 other states.
Restoring Public Confidence
Americans used to scoff at "elections" in countries
with communist or dictatorial governments where unopposed leaders
were routinely "re-elected" with 99.9 percent of the
vote. Now many Americans scoff at our own national system, where
40 percent of state legislators run unopposed and about 90 percent
of incumbents are reelected. Across America, at every level of
government, most of our elections tell an undemocratic story, in
this view.
Democracy cannot thrive without competition among political
candidates who have enough money to inform citizens about their
ideas and qualifications. To get their message across, candidates
need to spend money on such things as rallies, posters, bumper
stickers, lawn signs, mailings, and advertising. The problem is
that more than 90 percent of political contributions comes from
wealthy contributors and special interests, which often have matters
pending before government. As campaign costs increase, elections
become elitist fundraising competitions and the democratic principle
of "one person, one vote" is corrupted into "one
donor, much influence."
Money and politics have always been a dangerous mix, and the
problem has mushroomed along with the costs of running an election
campaign. Politicians, especially those running for major offices,
find themselves on a fundraising treadmill and face the inevitable
conflict of serving the moneyed interests as well as the public
interest.
Proponents of this choise say that the only way to restore
confidence in our political system is by re-balancing two democratic
principles: political equality among citizens and political freedom
to financially support political candidates. As it is now, the vast
majority of Americans have lost political equality with special
interests and affluent citizens who use campaign contributions to
advance their interests in a money-hungry system. In this view,
restoring political equality requires the nation to consider a menu
of regulatory reforms and public funding options.
Advocates of publicly funded elections maintain that political
campaigns are for the public good and deserve the public's financial
support. Under public systems, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
constitutional in 1976, public funds are given to politicians who
accept voluntary limits on spending. Under this general concept
there are many possible levels of public subsidy for election
campaigns and many ways to carry out the program.
Choice One supporters also favor imposing new restrictions on
contributions. For example, many supporters suggest permitting only
individual citizens, not corporations or committees, to make gifts
to candidates and political organizations, and restricting those
donations to small amounts -- say, $250.
To improve the quality of campaigns and to keep public costs
down, Choice One supporters often call for shortening campaigns,
and providing free air time for public discussions. For example,
supporters oftenoften urge TV and radio stations to provide free time for
candidates to convey and debate their ideas. Allowing each candidate
as little as 90 minutes per election would not burden broadcasters,
proponents say, and they should in any event be required to provide
this public service in exchange for their license to use the public
airways.
It's a Civil Rights Issue
Choice One supporters who advocate publicly funded elections
see their cause as nothing less than a fight for voters' civil
rights. After all, the nation has come a long way since the days
when only white, male property owners could vote. Over the years,
Congress and the courts have removed many barriers to voting
including property, gender, race, age qualifications, poll taxes,
and high filing fees for candidates. In striking down these barriers
courts have followed the democratic principle that every law-abiding
adult citizen should have an equal vote and equal political power.
But today, the biggest barrier to fair elections and equal voting
rights is what supporters call the "wealth primary," a
term coined to describe the fundraising competition that precedes
-- and, to an astonishing extent, predetermines -- the outcome of
official elections. While money can't buy elections, lack of it
can lose them. Consequently, supporters believe that most elections
are foregone conclusions because the candidates who raise the most
money in the private wealth primary almost invariably win the
official elections. Consider the impact of the wealth primaries in
the 1998 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, where
citizens are supposed to have the closest ties to federal government.
Choice One maintains that most elections were essentially over when
a majority of incumbents entered the race with their campaign war
chests overflowing with cash. With this money, they scared off
competition and vastly outspent rivals. As a result, one in five
races was uncontested by a major party opponent, and three out of
four incumbents beat their under-funded challengers by landslide
margins (more than 20 percent) -- including landslide wins in every
House race in 11 states.
Moreover, elected officials have to spend inordinate amounts of
time raising money for their next election -- and that's a powerful
threat to an effective government. U.S. senators, for example,
have to raise an average of $2,000 a day every day during their
entire six-year term to run competitive elections.
Reforms Revive Democracy
While Choice One argues for a menu of reform ideas, it is common
for states to enact a combination of anticorruption rules and public
funding. Minnesota, for instance, has obtained nearly 100 percent
participation by candidates in its voluntary public funding system.
The innovative program reimburses voters for individual donations
of up to $50 and drastically limits the influence of big donors.
For example, candidates cannot accept gifts over $500 from any one
source except a political party, which can give a candidate only
up to $5,000. As a result, uncontested elections are a rarity,
races have more candidates competing, and the state has one of the
nation's highest rates of voter participation.
What Can Be Done?
Choice One supporters generally favor the following measures:
Reduce the power of special interests and big donors with an
approach that includes stricter regulations or publicly funded
elections, or some combination of both.
Consider using tax dollars to finance election campaigns as a
way to end the corrupting influence of private money in politics.
For example:
- Use one of many innovative ways to finance elections, such as
direct grants to qualifying candidates or direct payment
of certain campaign expenses.
- Incorporate the cost of publicly funding elections into
budgets at every level of government.
- To ensure that public funds don't go to fringe candidates with
almost no support, make candidates qualify for public funds by
demonstrating some minimum level of public support, perhaps
by raising small sums from many voters or by collecting
voters' signatures endorsing their candidacy.
Consider tightening regulations on campaign fundraising.
For example:
- Permit only individual citizens to make political contributions,
and limit all donations to small amounts of money, such as
$250 per candidate per election.
- Ban political gifts from out-of-state or out-of-district, making
it as illegal as out-of-state or out-of-district voting. Ban
all foreign contributions.
- Ban all unlimited political contributions, such
as the "soft money" donations to political parties,
which are then siphoned off to favoriate candidates, often
incumbents.
- Level the playing field between incumbents
and challengers. For example, suspend the congressional
privilege of free postage during election years.
- Require radio and TV broadcasters, as a condition of their
license to use public airways, to provide free air time to
candidates (for example, 90 minutes per candidate per
election).
|
In This View
- Politicians can't simultaneously serve the public interest and
the moneyed interests that pay their campaign bills.
- Privately funded elections, together with soaring campaign
costs, have corrupted our entire political system by giving
wealthy donors and special interests too much influence. To
restore legitimacy to our political process, we need major
reforms to reduce the corrupting role of private money in
politics.
- Because campaigns are so expensive, elected officials have
to spend a huge amount of time raising money instead of
doing their job.
- If the American people are to regain control of the government, they
may have to pay for election campaigns. Publicly funding
elections could save taxpayers money in the long run by
reducing wasteful government spending on tax loopholes for
corporations and pork barrel projects for special interests.
- The role of big money in politics has robbed most Americans
of political equality. To restore it, contributions must
only come from individual citizens and be limited to small
amounts.
- Providing free air time to candidates would make election campaigns
more substantive and more democratic. Americans are sick of
the flood of 30-second ads that are little more than slogans
and slurs.
- With Choice One's reforms, our elected officials would be freed
from real and apparent conflicts of interest and be more able
to focus on the common good.
|
In Contrary Views
- Do taxpayers really want to pay for the campaigns of politicians
they oppose or for fringe candidates to get up on soap-boxes?
Thanks to public funding, federal taxpayers may subsidize
the 2000 primary campaign of Lyndon LaRouche, who has called
for colonizing Mars in some of his seven prior presidential
campaigns. As a felon -- he was convicted of tax fraud in
1989 -- some states wouldn't allow him to vote, but he can
run for President and may be eligible for public matching
funds.
- Americans have not supported public funding. Despite the fact that
it doesn't cost them anything, the number of taxpayers who
have assigned $1 to $3 of their federal tax payment to the
presidential campaign fund has steadily declined to under 15
percent.
- Are Choice One supporters suggesting that the only fair system is
one in which they win elections more often? Rigging the system
with new regulations or public funds so they win isn't
democratic.
- This choice goes way too far with new regulations. Why, for example,
restrict donations from individual citizens?
- This choice maligns "special interests," yet there is
nothing wrong with like-minded retailers, insurers, teachers,
or fire fighters assembling organizations that promote their
self-interests. That's America.
- This choice attempts to reduce the power of money in election
campaigns, but the more worrisome problem of money in politics
comes from lobbying done year-round by special interests.
|
|
For Further Reading / Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising
System
- Dan Clawson and others, Dollars and Votes: How Business
Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy (Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press, 1998).
- Darrell West and Burdett Loomis, The Sound of Money: How
Political Interests Get What They Want (New York, N.Y.: W.W.
Norton, 1999).
- www.publicampaign.org
is the Web site for Public Campaign, a Washington, D.C., based
non-profit organization that seeks to change the money culture that
has taken over politics.
|
|
