Return to CFR Resources

Longer Proposal for Full Public Financing

The contribution of private money to political campaigns seriously undermines the institution of democracy in the United States. Candidates for public office need to spend increasingly large amounts of money to get elected. In 1996, 92% of House races and 88% of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent more money. Superior campaign war-chests allow candidates to dominate the expensive TV, radio, and print media, through which most Americans receive their information about the political elections. Knowing this fact, candidates and parties have recently increased their fund-raising efforts, and the resulting "arms race" has pushed the overall cost of all national political campaigns from approximately $2 billion in 1992, to $2.4 billion in 1996, to an estimated $3 billion in the 2000 election cycle.

The growing influence of private money on the political system:

1. Restricts the number and nature of the choices available in the democratic election process
2. Perpetuates political institutions which are not representative of the population as a whole
3. Unduly pressures legislators on important decisions that affect the future of this nation
4. Fosters a perception of corruption which leads to voter apathy and a weaker democratic base.

I will now address these problems in greater detail:

1. An analysis of the 1996 election cycle reveals that four out of five House incumbents faced either no challenger at all or a challenger with so little money – less than 50% of that available to the incumbent – as to be deemed not a serious competitor. In the last five presidential primaries for both major parties, the candidate who had raised the most money by January 1 of the election year (before any primaries were held) has always won his party’s nomination. Thus, the wealth-based fundraising primary and subsequent soft-money fundraising by parties have begun to displace the actual primary and general elections in importance and have drastically defined and reduced the choices available to the American people in the ballot booth.
2. The influence of money in the American political system affects the make-up of our democratic bodies. The inability of candidates without personal wealth or connections to money to mount credible political campaigns under the present system, adversely affects the traditionally disadvantaged elements of our society. The 160,000 residents of the three highest contributing U.S. zip codes, who incidentally are 90% white, gave as much as the 20 million people in the 1,050 zip codes in the United States with 75% or more people of color. Despite great strides made by women in the last 30 years, women make up little more than 1/10 of the U.S. Senate. Women gave less than ¼ of all campaign contributions in the 1997-98 election cycle and this in part may account for the fact that more than 5 times as many men as women were able to win their primaries and gain their party’s nomination. The effect of the money chase is a steady under-representation of women, minorities, and the poor in national elected bodies, while millionaires are over-represented in the U.S. Senate by a factor of 5,000% according to Roll Call magazine.
3. Under the current system, elected officials must constantly raise money for their next campaign. As of 1998, newly elected Senators on average needed to raise over $16,000 every week of their six-year terms if they planed to be competitive in the next election. House Members needed to raise over $6,000 per week. With so much pressure to raise campaign funds, elected officials often take money from industries and individuals who are directly affected by legislation they are considering. In the words of Sen. Wyche Fowler (D-Georgia) in an interview soon after his retirement from the Senate, "I was on the Ways and Means Committee for six years, and every single interest that comes to you has got a special private interest where they are seeking to get subsidized, through the tax code . . . I am sure that on many occasions – I’m not proud of it – I made the choice that I needed this big corporate client and therefore I voted for, or sponsored, its provision, even though I did not think that it was in the best interests of the country or the economy." Unfortunately, although Senator Fowler’s honesty may be rare, his actions are not. To give an example, the 62 senators who voted to kill a 1995 proposal by Sen. Bill Bradley to raise tobacco taxes and use the revenue for health care funding and programs to assist tobacco farmers to convert to new crops had received an average of $19,003 each in Tobacco Industry PAC contributions between 1991-1996. The 38 Senators who voted in favor of the proposal had received an average of only $2,436 in Tobacco money. There is a cozy relationship between campaign contributions and votes within the Congress of the United States and both sides benefit from the arrangement. The Cato Institute estimates that the federal government handed out $60 billion in corporate subsidies in 1996 alone. In 1998, 98.3% of incumbent representatives seeking reelection were returned to the House. The numbers speak for themselves.
4. Perhaps the most egregious effect of the pervasive influence of moneyed interests on political elections is the increasing voter apathy, cynicism, and distrust of the political system evident throughout the American population and especially among today’s youth. Less than half (49%) of eligible voters cast their ballots in the 1996 elections. Studies conducted by both CNN and GenerationVote.com indicate that only 25% of eligible voters between the ages of 18-24 plan to vote in the 2000 presidential elections. One of the major reasons for declining voter turnout and apathy is the widespread perception of corruption in the political system. A poll by the Princeton Survey Research Associates showed that two thirds of Americans (66%) believe that political contributions exercise an inordinate influence over the political system and pose a major problem for the government.

Some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs must lie with the Federal Election Commission, whose six partisan commissioners routinely allow politicians and parties to get away with illegal fundraising practices. However, current campaign finance laws, even if strictly enforced, are inadequate to address the full scope of the problems inherent to the present American election system.

The solution to the current problems with the campaign finance system is to institute a voluntary system of full public financing of federal elections in the United States. In such a system, candidates who would agree to fixed spending and contribution limits and who could prove wide-spread public support by raising a specified number of small qualifying contributions should be provided with a fixed amount of public funds adequate to pursue their electoral campaigns. Limited additional funds should also be available to participating candidates to match expenditures by non-participating candidates or independent entities over the public funding amount. All candidates, regardless of participation in the public financing system, should receive a small amount of free prime time programming over the public airwaves, as is the practice in Great Britain and many other European countries.

In addition to candidate-specific reforms, the soft money loophole must be eliminated. Furthermore, all campaign contributions to candidates and political committees must be subject to immediate electronic disclosure requirements. Finally, there must be a radical restructuring of the Federal Election Commission. The commission should consist of seven members, instead of six, and commissioners should be nominated to the Senate by a non-partisan Elections Advisory Board, made up of constitutional scholars and elder statesmen.

To summarize, the new system of full public financing must be comprehensive but voluntary. Its purpose is not to restrict freedom or give undue advantage to a specific constituency or segment of our society, but rather to provide a realistic alternative source of funding for legitimate candidates who do not have the ability to raise large amounts of money. Such a system would ensure that any qualified person could run for office, increase the competition and accountability of politicians, allow elected officials to make important legislative decisions free from the corrupting influences of the money chase, and increase voter confidence and involvement by giving all citizens meaningful participation in the democratic process through an affirmation of the principle of "one person, one vote."

Any system of public financing must be designed to pass constitutional muster in the eyes of the federal court system. Opponents often contend that the contribution limits necessary for comprehensive public financing are unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that congressional campaign expenditure limits were illegal because money equals speech. However, recent court decisions indicate that the ideals of freedom and equal opportunity can be constitutionally sculpted to complement each other in American election law. The Supreme Court’s Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC decision in January 2000 specified that state and federal governments do have the right to institute reasonable campaign contribution limits. Courts in Maine, Vermont, and Arizona have gone one step farther, by declaring unequivocally that campaign spending limits are constitutional as long as they are part of a voluntary system of public financing.

Incumbent legislators often legitimately fear that public financing would be a unilateral disarmament which would weigh the system against incumbents and inundate the election with wacky fringe candidates running on public money. The experiences of Maine, Vermont, and Arizona, which have successfully implemented full public financing in all state political races, seem to show otherwise. In these states, most successful candidates are staying within the two party system and incumbents are finding it possible to mount credible campaigns.

The claim is often leveled that public financing actually entails massive welfare for politicians that will cost the taxpayers large amounts of money. Studies indicate that public financing of federal elections would require less than one tenth of one percent of the federal budget, while the public financing provided would have the effect of allowing legislators more time to study important legislation and meet with their constituents, instead of fundraising around the country.

Democracy must not simply guarantee the right of 1/3 of 1% of the population to gain access and influence over legislation through large political contributions. For our nation to prosper, democracy must also guarantee the accountability of the government to the people as a whole through free and fair elections. Court rulings in Maine, Vermont, and Arizona prove that full public financing can be structured in a fully constitutional way. The widespread public support enjoyed by John McCain in his recent run for the presidency shows that a movement to reform the political system would enjoy wide public support. The main obstacle to meaningful change lies in the refusal of American legislators to rally the country against the quiet death of even moderate reform legislation in the Senate and House. I urge you to take a strong stand on this issue and begin a national dialogue which will lead to a revitalization of our democracy through comprehensive public financing of our political elections.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Wyatt

bwyattgreene@wesleyan.edu

Return to CFR Resources