Money in Politics 2009 | Panel Three
Panel Three: Reconfiguring Reform: Innovations in Campaign Finance Reform
Our one-day conference, Money in Politics 2009: New Horizons for Reform, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., May 8th, 2009, took the first systematic look at what happened in 2008, and its implications for policy, politics and law in 2009 and beyond. It brought together leading experts on campaign finance, preeminent governmental and campaign officials, and advocates to assess new ideas and map out new directions in campaign finance.
Use the sidebar to navigate to other programs in the conference. Click on the videos to begin viewing or read the summary below.
Peter Overby
Beth Rotman | (1/2)
Beth Rotman | (2/2)
Nick Nyhart
Fred Wertheimer
Richard Briffault | (1/2)
Richard Briffault | (2/2)
Bob Bauer | (1/2)
Bob Bauer | (2/2)
Panel Three Q&A | (1/3)
Panel Three Q&A | (2/3)
Panel Three Q&A | (3/3)
Summary of Panel Three
Peter Overby, from National Public Radio, served as the moderator and began by articulating the question of whether the time was now right for public financing of elections and asking panelists to address the issue that less prominent elections may be benefiting less from the "small donor revolution" than are more prominent ones.
Beth Rotman, Director of the Connecticut Citizens' Election Program, described the operation of the Connecticut full public financing system, the first passed by a state legislature in the country. The Connecticut system is the most comprehensive public financing program undertaken by any state. It provides full public financing to state legislative and executive candidates. Enacted at the same time was a ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists and state contractors.
In the 2008 election cycle, 75% percent of eligible candidates participated in the program. According to Ms. Rotman, most candidates who legitimately attempted to qualify for public funding were able to do so, but she cautioned that the program's qualification criteria are substantial.
While the final report from the State Elections Enforcement Commission ("SEEC") - the state agency in charge of administering the program - will be released in the near future, preliminary data show that total PAC contributions decreased in the 2008 election cycle, while individual contributions increased. Ms. Rotman also noted that the program has allowed individuals to run for elected office who would not have been able to do so with private fundraising alone.
Next, Public Campaign CEO and President Nick Nyhart shared his view that now is exactly the right time to pass public funding of congressional races. He described how the Fair Elections Now Act ("FENA") - a fair elections financing system for federal congressional races - would operate. Because FENA is structured to amplify the speech rights of small donors, to oppose FENA is to oppose increased speech for millions of Americans. FENA allows those candidates who opt to receive public financing to reach out to a more diverse group of citizens and depend on a broader group of supporters. Indeed, FENA steers more people to the campaigns. Thus, qualifying for public funding under FENA is more like a campaign field exercise than a fundraising exercise.
Mr. Nyhart closed his talk by reiterating that now is the best moment to advance public funding for congressional races. There is strong leadership in Congress, support in the White House, and a public that voted in the 2008 election to bring change to Washington. Desired changes cannot occur, stated Mr. Nyhart, without changing the way money works in Washington.
Fred Wertheimer, President of Democracy 21, observed that debates about campaign finance are cyclical and that there have been four periods of campaign finance reform in the last 40 years. The first cycle occurred in 1966, and we are currently in the fourth cycle, which began in 2007 as Democrats regained control of Congress.
The Presidential campaign finance system has collapsed, according to Mr. Wertheimer, because it was never updated after it was first put into place, and thus became outmoded. The Obama campaign demonstrated innovation with its reliance on small donors and the internet, an innovation that creates the potential for revolutionizing the way in which campaigns are financed.
When President Obama was a candidate and opted out of the public funding program, he affirmed he was committed to reforming the system so that it would be able to operable again. But it is important that reform take place now, so that an updated presidential public financing system could be utilized during the 2012 campaign cycle. Mr. Wertheimer concluded by stating that the keys to updating the presidential public funding system include a 4-to-1 match on small donations and restrictions on bundling.
Professor Richard Briffault began by observing that new approaches to public funding of campaigns have two notable features: 1) a move away from full public funding and 2) a move away from spending limits.
Based on prior Supreme Court decisions, a public funding system cannot require that candidates accept public funding. Furthermore, independent groups will spend money to influence campaigns. Therefore, any public funding program has to account for the possibility of unlimited funding by a non-participating candidate or independent organizations. Previously, this was addressed through the availability of "rescue funds" or "trigger funds." In the Davis case, however, the Supreme Court struck down the "Millionaire's Amendment" of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - which triggered asymmetrical contribution limits when a wealthy privately financed candidate spent a certain amount of personal funds - and in its analysis framed the trigger mechanism as a limit. Under Davis, the fact that a non-participating opponent outflanked a participating candidate cannot be reason to provide more money or allow for increased spending limits..
Because candidates may still collect small contributions after receiving a public grant, the FENA program does not constitute a "full" public funding system. Additionally, even small donors represent a different segment of the population than non-donors. For instance, small donors tend to be much more politically engaged than non-donors. Programs that encourage small donors may affect the types of candidates that run for elected office and the types of appeals those candidates make.
Finally, attorney Robert Bauer addressed the question of how to evaluate the success or failure of public funding systems. While Mr. Bauer wanted to register a note of caution and a plea for a degree of modesty in statements about public funding, these suggestions do not imply that the reform community can't be strong supporters of campaign finance reform.
According to Mr. Bauer, supporters of campaign finance reform sometimes overstate what will follow from such reforms. Rather than speculate, he suggested, we should communicate a reasonable set of expectations. Because public financing will not change politics top to bottom, supporters should not make claims that are too broad or sweeping. Furthermore, we do not need to set guidelines for what is appropriately considered a "small" donation. Instead, we can establish a set of goals for individual giving at the lower ranges, and a reward system for donations of that size, while simultaneously allowing flexibility.
For the question and answer portion of the panel, the moderator, Mr. Overby, opened by asking panelists to respond to the assertion that public financing is "food stamps for politicians." Mr. Nyhart responded by suggesting that the new model for public financing is better thought of as money directed by small donors, rather than the same interests that Congress is tasked with regulating.
Mr. Wertheimer then suggested that the larger issue to overcome is creating an environment in which incumbents, who hold tremendous financial advantages, will choose to adopt a public financing system. Mr. Bauer suggested that one of the stronger arguments than can be made in defense of public financing is that corporations can spend huge sums and affect policy precisely because we do not currently have public financing.
An audience questioner then asked what surprised panelists about the Clean Elections system in Connecticut. Ms. Rotman was surprised by the level of anxiety toward the new program and the amount of "hand holding" required in its inaugural year. Mr. Nyhart credited Ms. Rotman for successfully administering such a large program and pointed out that the appeal of the program among state legislators was tremendous in its first year. In response to another question about the insights that the public financing system in Connecticut provides to the federal model, Ms. Rotman noted the popularity of the program and the attendant administrative issues.
Another questioner asked Mr. Bauer how to construct a public financing system that accentuates the role of small donors without relying on threshold donation amounts such as $200. While Mr. Bauer did not seek to dispute the fact that line-drawing must occur in the legislative process, he cautioned that thresholds must not be treated too rigidly and that they must be established with a "realistic sense of what you're trying to accomplish."