Shorter Proposal for Full Public Financing
by Benjamin Wyatt
Problem Statement
Private money contributions to political campaigns undermine democracy in the United States. Candidates for public office are spending increasing amounts of money to get elected. In the 2000 elections, the candidate who spent more money won 94% of House races and 85% of Senate races. Superior campaign war chests allow candidates to dominate the expensive TV, radio, and print media, through which most Americans receive their information about politics. Knowing this, candidates and parties have recently intensified their fund-raising efforts. In the 2000 elections, special-interest political contributions rose 80%, soft money party fundraising rose nearly 90%, and independent expenditures rose 100% over 1996 levels. These increases are part of an accelerating "arms race" of fundraising that has pushed the overall cost of all national political campaigns from approximately $2 billion in 1992, to $2.4 billion in 1996, to over $3 billion in the 2000 election cycle.
The growing influence of private money on the political system subverts the democratic election process. In 1996, four out of five House incumbents faced either no challengers or challengers with so little money that they were not serious competitors. In the last five presidential primaries for both major parties, the candidate who raised the most money by January 1 of the election year (before any primaries were held) has always won his party’s nomination.
The constant need to raise large amounts of funds for re-election inevitably pressures legislators on important decisions that affect the future of this nation. To give an example, 62 senators voted to kill a 1995 proposal by Sen. Bill Bradley to raise tobacco taxes. This money would have paid for health care funding and programs to assist the transition of tobacco farmers to new crops. These senators 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.
The end result of these "wealth primaries" is the perpetual under-representation of financially disadvantaged constituencies, such as women, minorities, and the poor, in our political institutions. Millionaires, it may be of interest to note, are over-represented in the U.S. Senate by a factor of 5,000% according to Roll Call magazine.
Solution
The only way to overcome these inequities, is for the current campaign finance arrangement to be replaced with a voluntary system of full public financing of federal elections in the United States. In such a system, candidates who agree to fixed spending and contribution limits, and who can prove wide-spread public support by raising a specified number of small qualifying contributions, would be provided with public funds adequate to pursue their campaigns. Limited additional funding would 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, would 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 should be subject to immediate electronic disclosure requirements. Finally, there must be a significant restructuring of the Federal Election Commission. The current commission is easily influenced by the two major parties and becomes hopelessly deadlocked on many important decisions. The commission should consist of seven members, instead of six, and a non-partisan Elections Advisory Board, made up of constitutional scholars and elder statesmen, should nominate commissioners to the Senate.
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 source of alternate funding for legitimate candidates who do not have the ability to raise large amounts of money. Democracy must not simply guarantee the right of one third of one percent 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. A publicly-financed election 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."
Major Obstacles and Implementation Challenges
In the past, the quest for meaningful reform has been undermined by a tetrarchy of strict constructionist courts, incumbent legislators, and special interests. However, there is evidence that the opposition of these powerful constituencies may be weakening.
Any system of public financing must be able to pass the high constitutional bar set by the Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that congressional campaign expenditure limits were illegal because money equals speech. However, 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 a step further by deeming campaign spending limits to be constitutional as long as they are part of a voluntary system of public financing.
Incumbent legislators often fear that public financing will leave them vulnerable to re-election challenges from publicly funded fringe candidates. However, in Maine, Vermont, and Arizona -- three states which successfully implemented full public financing of state political races during the 2000 election -- incumbents were still able to mount strong campaigns. The success of Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) in winning re-election without soft money in 1998, and the increasing popularity of the modest reform bill he sponsors with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), reveals a growing understanding among national politicians that the contribution of special interest money to political campaigns fosters a perception of corruption that leads to voter apathy and a weaker democratic base.
There is growing evidence that corporations and some special interests are tiring of the rising demand for contributions in Washington. The Committee for Economic Development, which includes executives of General Motors, Xerox, Merck and the Sara Lee Corporation, has launched an increasingly vocal lobbying campaign to ban soft money donations.
With a congress dominated by opponents of reform and with a president who was assisted into office by the most successful fundraising effort in history, prospects for any immediate reforms, beyond the McCain-Feingold soft money ban, look dim. However, the weaknesses within the American democratic process revealed by the 2000 election demand that our political leaders initiate a meaningful dialogue to explore possible strategies for revitalizing our democracy. Reform of the campaign finance system is a vital part of this discussion.