The Real Deal
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.
