Blog
Public Financing
By Laura MacCleery – 03/20/08
Earlier this month, there was a quite a kerfuffle over the presidential public funding system and whether Senators McCain and Obama, if named their parties' nominee, would claim some $85 million in public money for the general election.
Confusion among Democrats has put this issue on a back-burner, but just for now. Senator Clinton has made no promises about accepting public funding, but should Obama emerge the nominee, this quandary will likely be front-and-center again quite quickly.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, both he and McCain should rapidly agree to accept public money in the general election, as sound campaign policy and as a statement of principle. Public funding in the general election makes particular sense because it allows presidential candidates to avoid an unseemly spectacle of passing the hat to wealthy donors in the last days leading up to an election.
This is valuable time in the course of a campaign that should be spent communicating with voters. Particularly in light of the record turn-out in this primary season and the energized electorate of new small donors, public funding offers the opportunity to demonstrate that these candidates truly do value voters over dollars.
While the flaws in the presidential funding system are serious, they are mainly concerns the tight limits on spending in the primary phase rather than the general election. These could easily be remedied next year by Congressional passage of a bill to update the program. It is well worth saving.
The presidential public funding system worked well for 30 years, allowing challengers to beat incumbents in 3 out of the 6 races. It generally receives the credit for assisting successful presidential bids by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. In fact, since the program began in 1976, public funding was accepted by both Republican and Democratic candidates in every general election - even in 2000 and 2004, when the flow of money during the primary season was record-breaking.
It is a testament to the durability and value of the idea of a publicly funded campaign that both Senators McCain and Obama would anticipate its use in the general election. The amount of funds available - $85 million - is a substantial sum given the shortness of time between the close of the party conventions in August and the beginning of November. Obviously, this total was viewed as sufficient by both candidates as recently as last year.
It is true that the presidential public funding system does need work: it has not been meaningfully updated in 30 years. Bills pending in both the House (Shays-Price) and Senate (Feingold-Collins) would increase the amount of the match for the primary and dismantle outdated state-specific spending limits, provide matching funds for spending by non-participating opponents, increase the level of coordinated party spending, and increase the amount of funds available in both the primary and the general election (for example, to $100 million for the general). The bills also improve public education on the tax check-off that funds the program and increases the amount. (Note for April 15th - checking this box will not increase your taxes.) Also cosponsoring the legislation in the Senate are Obama and Clinton, among others. McCain has been supportive in the past but has declined to sponsor the bill while running for president.
Sen. Obama, in an op-ed for USA Today, raised several concerns about the mechanics of accepting the funds. In particular, he worried about the differences in the dates of the nominating conventions (the Democrats will go first by a few days), and about the impact of independent spending by outside groups, some of which have already pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to attack or defend both parties' nominees. If the time comes, Obama said that he planned to pursue an agreement with McCain to address these matters.
In the background is a devastating 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision from last summer, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. A narrow opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts re-opened a loophole once closed by Senators McCain and Feingold in their landmark 2003 campaign finance reform law. The ruling will doubtless open the floodgates for massive independent spending by outside groups seeking to influence the election, which can now pay for these ads with money from the corporate treasury.
In light of this serious setback, reform for the presidential public funding system should consider a system to provide more money, up to a cap, to match independent expenditures in the general election, as this could dwarf direct spending by candidates in this election and beyond. The goal would not be to match outside money dollar-for-dollar, but instead to ensure that the voice of the candidate is clearly heard. No one should have to sit on their hands while the Swift Boaters circle.
In addition, the fix bills should provide that the general election season for both parties begin on the same date, such as September 1, to avoid the gaming around convention dates that affects the current disbursements.
Until the system is fixed, the candidates considering use of public funding have been forced to consider a negotiated deal. Time will tell whether an agreement can be brokered that will enable both Senators McCain and Obama to use the public money and assure an even playing field among the candidates - terms Obama called for in his USA Today op-ed. Both should "aggressively pursue an agreement," as Obama pledged to do.
3:21/08 - UPDATE on McCain's and Obama's public financing pledges in The Politico.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Michael Waldman – 02/19/08
As this riveting campaign unfolds, we can easily miss a startling fact: the President of the United States who follows George W. Bush will be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. Two liberal (oops, progressive) Democrats or the Republican most willing to stand up to Bush over the first six years of his presidency. To use the word of the moment, that is change. And because of a little-noticed electoral fact, more change may be on the way.
The candidates this fall will be competing to win an electoral bloc that has been the invisible force determining many recent elections. The reform-minded voters who backed Ross Perot in 1992 will once again be the "jump ball" for this election. Call them, to paraphrase our outgoing chief executive, "The Deciders."
The cantankerous energy of the Perot vote may seem distant today, but I remember it vividly. I stood a few yards away from the stage in Little Rock, Arkansas on Election Night, 1992. That night, speaking to 30,000 screaming supporters, president elect Bill Clinton took note of the day's biggest surprise. Ross Perot had received 19 percent of the vote, after it was clear he was flakier than a fresh croissant. Clinton told Perot's voters he heard them, and pledged political reform as an early priority.
Perot is often remembered today as a funny looking little man vowing to "get under the hood" of a broken system. He lent himself easily to Dana Carvey's mimicry, as when he declared that George H.W. Bush had tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding. In fact, Perot waged a sharply substantive campaign. Perot vowed to clean Washington of "foreign lobbyists." He spoke of campaign finance reform. He talked about the ballooning budget deficit—not so much as a matter of economics, but as a metaphor for how government had gotten out of control. And he assailed the pending NAFTA trade agreement. Perot's supporters were overwhelmingly Republicans ready to break with the GOP.
In fact, that's how political change usually happens in America. A part of the governing coalition breaks off. The disaffected bloc backs a third party bid. One of the major parties wins by absorbing the independent force to form a new majority. That's what happened with the Whigs and the Republicans in the 1850s. FDR's Democrats absorbed the third party Progressives of the 1920s, who had been disaffected Republicans. (Harold Ickes, for example, was a Republican before he became FDR's long serving cabinet secretary. His son is a top Clinton strategist.) Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy worked successfully to absorb the George Wallace voters of 1968 into a new Republican majority. Following the pattern, Ross Perot was a disaffected Republican—and his voters were ripe for the plucking after 1992.
Instead, the Democrats failed to win them over. In Clinton's first years, reform didn't happen. Campaign finance and lobbying changes never passed. Deficit reduction took so much political capital that it wound up looking half-hearted. And on trade, Clinton simply disagreed with Perot, passing NAFTA and other deals. The Perot vote, in short, wasn't courted. (I remember urging political reform to a senior official. "What about Perot?" I implored. "Let's hope he runs," came the reply.)
The result: Perot voters switched to the GOP in 1994, giving them the Congress. The bloc swung back to Clinton in 1996. It split in 2000; moved strongly for Bush in 2002 and 2004; and repudiated the Republicans in 2006. Once again these less partisan, change-oriented, often angry voters are in play. Recently I asked one of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's top strategists how much overlap there was between the Perot vote and a potential base for an independent Bloomberg candidacy. "Eighty-five percent," came the answer.
How can candidates today appeal to the "radical center"? Some issues remain from 1992, and some are new. Public financing of campaigns is still a top priority. (Let's hope that's not still true when Chelsea Clinton is old enough to run for President.) Today it's plain that the voting system glaringly needs repair too. A swirl of other issues may appeal to these voters—ranging from immigration reform (the proxy for free-floating anxiety) and anti-free-trade sentiment to new concerns about a resurgent Imperial Presidency.
Especially intriguing, each candidate today has some claim on the political change vote. McCain sponsored the bipartisan campaign finance bill that became law in 2002. Obama was a key sponsor of ethics reform. Hillary Clinton introduced omnibus election reform that is the best single bill on voting. Neither party seems content to simply turn out its own base, as Karl Rove did so effectively for the Republicans over the past eight years. The early skirmish between McCain and Obama on whether they will participate in the presidential public funding system is a telling sign that the independent-minded voters are already "in play."
There are many good reasons to hope these candidates speak to the need for repair of our democratic systems. It's the right thing to do, for one. Moreover, democracy reforms are the only way that profound policy change will be possible after Election Day. All true. But something far more basic is at work: A bid for the mantle of political reform isn't just high mindedness, it's raw political self-interest. And that's good for the country.
> More posts from the Michael Waldman can be found on his bio page.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
By Deborah Goldberg – 02/15/08
There's been a lot of talk lately about whether presidential candidates Obama and McCain
have a "deal" to accept public funding if they are their parties'
nominees. What we should be talking
about is why a "deal" has become necessary and why there is a serious risk
that, if it ever existed, it will collapse under the weight of private money
flooding the campaigns. We also should
be talking about what it means for our country that our leaders—President,
Senators, Members of the House of Representatives—are dependent on funds raised
from wealthy individuals and special interests to run for office.
For many years, every major-party candidate for president
opted into our presidential public funding system to run his campaign. There was no need to cut a deal. There was enough money provided through the
system to ensure that the candidates could vigorously compete.
The presidential public funding system freed the candidates
from the endless money chase. They could
spend their time talking to voters—and maybe even listening to them!—instead of
ingratiating themselves to a minute clique of wealthy contributors with
not-so-hidden agendas. Because rich
donors could not claim credit for the winner's success, there was reason to hope
that the President would consult the interests of ordinary Americans when
making national policy decisions.
Granted, some of the current candidates are less dependent
on deep pockets than others. But research released by the Campaign Finance Institute shows that, as of the end of 2007, only
one candidate had raised even half of his funds from small donors-and he's not
part of the "deal." When all of a candidates' funds come from
small donors or public financing, we'll have a lot less concern about who is
likely to be pulling the policy strings.
It is a simple matter to update the presidential public
funding system provides so that it can provide the resources necessary for
competitive campaigns. There is already
a bill that will
do the job. There is also a bill that
would provide public funding for U.S. Senate, and there soon will be a House companion. If our leaders can reach office without debts
to donors, they are in a much better position to hear the voices of
voters.
The hope that our next President will listen to us should
not be dependent upon a "deal" between two major contenders. The candidates' "deal" should be with the
people. That is what democracy is all
about.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Contribution Limits, Other Reforms, Disclosure, Public Financing
By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 02/06/08
Mayor Bloomberg recently
complained publicly that a possible $90 million price tag might be too much to spend on providing public funds in municipal elections. He suggested a few changes to New York City's public matching funds system, stating: "If you don't have any competition, you shouldn't get money, and you shouldn't be able to hire relatives."
This is a tad misleading. Any candidate who is unopposed is ineligible for public matching grants. See New York City Campaign Finance Board Rules 5-01(i)(2). The Mayor may be referring to the more complicated problem of candidates who face only "nominal" opposition. Not being clairvoyant, there is no way for the Campaign Finance Board to know whether a candidate will garner 1 percent or 51 percent of the vote before the election. Therefore, it seems reasonable for the Board to continue to provide public funds to those who are opposed and withhold public funds from those who are unopposed.
As for hiring family members, any candidate in New York City is legally required to hire a treasurer for his or her campaign. For a small or a first time campaign, the only person willing to serve in this capacity might be a spouse or a sibling. Since candidates must have a treasurer, it makes sense that a treasurer who is a family member could be paid in part with public funds, once the candidate qualifies. But the Mayor may be right about compensating the other campaign workers who are not statutorily required. Using public dollars to pay a candidate's cousin to distribute campaign literature, when others would do it for minimum wage or on a volunteer basis, may not be the most prudent use of public funds.
However, with a proposed $9,989,000,000 (that's nearly $10 billion) budget for fiscal 2009, New York City could still definitely afford to spend $90 million (or less than one percent of its overall budget) on making its elections democratic.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Lawrence Norden – 01/31/08
For campaign finance junkies there were two very interesting reports out today. One shows that Barack Obama raised a stunning $32 million last month. And
another shows that, until very recently, anyway, John McCain's campaign was virtually broke.
Does this tell us
anything about how these two candidates might stack up against each other
financially in a general election? Maybe
not. An often overlooked deal between McCain and Sen. Obama last March to accept
public financing if they both got their parties' nominations is suddenly
seeming pretty important.
As David Kirkpatrick of
the New York Times noted almost ten months ago:
"Such a pact would
eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to
$85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return
any private donations that they had raised for that period."
But there's one more
wrinkle to this story. Just two days
ago, Politico reported that after a recent increase in fundraising (following his victories in New
Hampshire and South Carolina) McCain is seeking to get out of the public
financing program for the primaries. The
Federal Elections Commission might have to sign off on his exit from the
program, which poses a problem given the current political stalemate
handicapping the agency.
What this might mean
for the "deal" struck between Obama and McCain regarding public
financing for the general election is anyone's guess.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Bethany Foster – 12/07/07
*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post's Off the Bus
You're way behind in fundraising for congressional races. The tide
of public opinion is against you. What's a party to do? Recruit
super-wealthy candidates, of course.
Last week the New York Times described the GOP's plan
to seek candidates able to self-finance their campaigns to make up for
relatively weak fundraising numbers. In the first 10 months of 2007,
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $16 million more than the National Republican Congressional Committee. The GOP's Senate committee raised just $26.3 million in the same period compared to the $45.1 million raised by its Democratic counterpart. Yet as the Times notes, the Democrats too have their share of deep-pocketed contenders.
The unabashed interest in wealthy candidates is one of this campaign
season's most blatant signs that our system of choosing elected
officials is broken. Instead of seeking out the brightest, most capable
Americans to take on the tough issues facing our country, the parties
are checking the wallets of potential candidates for American Express Black Cards.
So what's the alternative? Public financing of congressional
elections. As we've seen on the state level in Maine and Arizona,
public financing systems give candidates of any personal means
the chance to attract public support and receive funds to run a
competitive campaign. Public financing frees candidates from the
pressures of fundraising, allowing sitting officials to concentrate on
serving their constituents. Out on the trail, publicly funded
candidates woo voters, not just big donors, by addressing the issues
important to ordinary Americans. And individuals who would rather stick
to the old system are able to opt out and raise funds privately.
A bill like the
Fair Elections Now Act,
introduced by Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Specter (R-PA), would go a
long way toward making campaigns more about fitness for office and less
about individual wealth or access to big donors.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Deborah Goldberg – 11/15/07
*Cross-posted from The Nation
Let's set the record straight once and for all. The Supreme Court opened the soft-money floodgates in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission
last June, but it did not change disclosure rules. The real problem is
that disclosure alone does not get us open, honest and accountable
government, and closing every loophole won't either. What we need is
public funding of federal elections, and we need it ASAP.
Contrary to a number of recent news reports (the New York Times article of November 12, "A New Channel for Soft Money Starts Flowing," is a good example), the Supreme Court has not sanctioned political advertising without disclosure. The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America
would not be subject to disclosure rules for its current South Carolina
ads featuring Senator John McCain, even if the Supreme Court had never
decided the Wisconsin Right to Life case. (I leave aside the
question whether the "foundation" should have been set up as a PAC.)
The law that the Court reviewed does not kick in until thirty days
before a federal primary election, and we're not there yet, even in
South Carolina. When we do get there, the ad sponsors will be subject
to the usual disclosure requirements. The Court did not touch them.
(Not yet, at least.)
The June case was a challenge to a specific provision of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA," or "McCain-Feingold"), which
barred corporations from using treasury funds for "electioneering
communications"--certain political ads aired thirty days before a
federal primary or sixty days before a general election. Wisconsin
Right to Life is a nonprofit corporation that is covered by BCRA, and
it wanted to use its treasury funds to run electioneering
communications about Senator Russ Feingold and the filibuster of
judicial nominations. The Supreme Court ruled that the ads were
advocacy about an issue, not against Feingold, so the nonprofit could
use its treasury funds for those ads.
Media critics are right when they report that the Supreme Court opened the door for more spending. It is fair to say, as the Times
did, that "thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision," more soft
money will start flowing. But the Court did not sanction secret
financing of political advertising, and groups running electioneering
communications should know that they are still required to disclose
major donors and disbursements. In other words, if the South Carolina
ads continue to run during the period thirty days before the state's
mid-January primary, the undisclosed financiers of those ads will have
to be disclosed (unless they contributed less than $1,000). If the
advertisers don't disclose, they will violate federal law.
The media's relentless, and relentlessly narrow, focus on the ads
and the spending obscures the deeper problem with our campaign finance
system. We are fixated on the candidates' endless money chase and the
expected flood of corporate funds into shadow campaigns. But we have
forgotten why we care. The point is not to eliminate money from the
political process but rather to ensure that we have open, honest and
accountable government.
For that, we need fundamental reform, not just devices to close up
loopholes. We need public funding of presidential and Congressional
campaigns. With public financing of elections, elected representatives
can respond to the interests of voters instead of worrying about the
deep-pocketed donors on the lookout for loopholes.
Public funding won't stop the constant hunt for loopholes; that game
will continue as long as wealthy interests want to influence politics.
But loopholes just wouldn't matter as much if candidates had a
meaningful alternative to private largesse. That option is public
funding, and it is already working in states and localities around the
country.
Federal bills have already been introduced for presidential and
Congressional public funding. This is not rocket science. What are we
waiting for?
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Disclosure, Public Financing
By James Sample – 10/10/07
*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post
Last night, a Republican was the victor in one of the most important
political contests of 2007. With apologies to the debaters in Michigan,
the contest last night with the most promise for a more accountable
democracy was won by Jason Perillo. Perillo, a publicly financed
Republican defeated a publicly financed Democrat in an historic special
legislative election in a state, that just a few short years ago, was
Exhibit A for the best government that money could buy. Our nation's
political leaders, particularly those in Congress, and those traipsing
through Iowa and New Hampshire, would do well to learn from a state
that seized, rather than deferred, its reform moment.
A less likely catalyst for democratic change than Connecticut's
113th House District is difficult to fathom. Every two years since 1974
the people of the 113th-yes, the state ranked 48th in total area has
151 districts- elected, re-elected, and re-re-elected Republican
Richard Beldon. Their unwavering and trans-generational loyalty made
Beldon the longest continuously serving member in state house history.
The last time someone other than Beldon won the 113th was the same day
Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern.
But Beldon passed away earlier this year, and a special election was
scheduled to replace him. Last night, that special election marked the
first test of a landmark full public financing system enacted in the
wake of state contracting scandals, corruption, and official
resignations that left Connecticut's governor in prison. Candidates of
both major parties participated in the program, eschewing special
interest money in favor of untainted public funds.
Connecticut's public financing system, known as the Citizens'
Election Program (CEP), is the first of its kind to be approved by
incumbent legislators whose own elections could be affected. Similar
public financing systems in Arizona and Maine were passed directly by
voters via ballot initiative. In Connecticut, however, elected
officials who had succeeded under the compromised status quo had the
courage to strive-at their own risk-for a more open and competitive
system. Because of that courage, a state that only recently was
justifiably dubbed "Corrupticut" is now a model for states across the
nation-and for the U.S. Congress.
As is true in Congress, the excessive influence of green in
Connecticut affected those affiliated with both red and blue.
Connecticut's many scandals resulted in the resignations Republicans
and Democrats alike. Likewise, recent bribery, ethics, and contracting
investigations involving members of Congress have involved powerful
members of each major party. Viewed over time, one realizes that for
every Randy "Duke" Cunningham yacht (R) there is a William Jefferson
freezer (D) and vice-versa. In terms of the overall impact of a system
of donor-capture on public policy, reciting just two notorious players
from each party is akin to analyzing football teams by mentioning only
their quarterbacks-the experts know that the truly severe problems are
deep in the trenches and hidden from plain view. But the cross-party
similarities of corruption in Connecticut and Congress underscore an
important point: advocating for a government that is as responsive to
mere voters as it is to donors should be a populist, not partisan push.
The people comprehend the problem. Nationally, in October of 2006,
75 percent of likely voters from across the political spectrum said
that the problem of political corruption was "extremely important" or
"very important" to them, while only 8 percent said it was only
"slightly important" or "not at all important." And in a national exit
poll of voters in the 2006 elections, "Corruption/Ethics" topped the
list of issues cited as "extremely important."
The people also see the answer. 74 percent of those surveyed in a
June 2006 poll said they supported a proposal for voluntary public
funding of federal elections. Support included 80 percent of
self-identified Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of
independent voters. The challenge is whether, as in Connecticut,
understanding can be translated into action before it is too late.
Because what happens to a reform moment deferred? Make absolutely no
mistake: stakeholders in the status quo ensure that it dries up like
the proverbial raisin in the sun.
Substantial steps are being taken to overcome that inertia. Most
importantly, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have
introduced the Fair Elections Now Act.
It is a federal adaptation of the "clean elections" models in place in
Maine, Arizona and now, Connecticut. As is true in Maine and Arizona,
where candidate participation and overall satisfaction rates are high,
the federal legislation is much more than an anti-corruption measure.
It also has the potential to invigorate public policy by emancipating
even the best-intentioned politicians from the constant, unyielding
tether of fundraising from the few, so that they might serve the many.
Consider that in the 2004 elections, less than 0.6 percent of
Americans of voting age made a contribution to a candidate of more than
$200, the threshold for public disclosure of donors. Then consider that
the average House winner in 2006 spent $1.6 million and the average
U.S. Senate winner in 2006 spent $9.6 million. The unavoidable
consequence is that, on average, starting immediately upon election,
the average House member must raise more than $1,000 per day, and the
average U.S. Senator must raise more than $3,000 per day in order to
sufficiently wage their next campaign. Still more to the point, nearly
all of that fundraising comes from that same 0.6 percent of Americans.
Even setting the anti-corruption interest aside, is it really a
surprise, in such circumstances, that so many of our public policies
reflect a compromised process, rather than a process of compromise?
The CEP will be available for all major party candidates and
qualified minor party candidates for the legislature in 2008. For the
citizens of the 113th, who now have their first new representative
since just after Nixon's resignation in 1974, change was inevitable.
For Connecticut, passing the CEP was anything but. It represented a
difficult, sustained, and finally successful effort to turn scandal
into progress. The result is a dramatic departure from the mores that
gave rise to another resignation-then-Governor Rowland's in 2004. The
Constitution State seized its reform moment, and seized back its good
name. The time is now for Congress to do the same.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
0 comments | Permalink