Public-financed campaigns
Is there anyone here who hasn’t felt overwhelmed by the amount of money spent on political campaigns? I don’t know about you, but I have bemoaned for years, the fact that it seems to take so much money to even think about being competitive in a national election. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about a Congressional race or the fight for the White House, millions upon millions of dollars are spent every time us voters head to the polls. To put this in perspective, the 2008 Presidential campaign cost the two major candidates a little over $1.1 billion in total money spent. My friends, that is no chump change.
PUBLIC-FINANCED CAMPAIGNS
There is in place, voluntary public financing for Presidential elections, which Barack Obama and
John McCain promised to use in their campaign in 2008. As you can see, that promise did not materialize, as Obama elected to go with his own donors, for obvious reasons. George W. Bush also elected to use his own fundraising in 2000 and 2004. As for Congress, there is legislation pending that would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional races.
Listed as H.R. 1826 and S. 752 in the House and the Senate respectively, the legislation is being sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative John Larson (D-CT) and it provides it’s own formula for how the system would work. From Open Secrets:
Their bill, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 1826 and as S. 752 in the Senate, would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional candidates. To qualify, participants would be required to raise a minimum threshold of dollars from a certain number of in-state donors who could contribute no more than $100 to a candidate’s war chest.
The amount of public financing would be uniform for House races and tied to a state’s population for Senate races. Supporters say the formula should provide enough money for most any candidate to run a competitive campaign. Durbin said the formula would provide candidates with a “fighting chance.”
With the Supreme Court ruling that corporations could spend freely on the election campaign of their choosing, the idea of publicly financed campaigns is getting a fresh look. The system that is in place right now clearly favors the incumbents and that could pose a problem, as I am sure they will not want to give up their advantage. The Washington Post explains how this works and it strengthens my belief that the financing system now in place may help the candidate, but the American people? I am not so sure about that.
Another plus for those in office: raking in cash for their own political action committees – on top of their campaign money – and doling out the proceeds to other candidates to curry favor and ascend within the party ranks. They sometimes boost their fundraising potential by teaming with others in Congress to hold events and split the proceeds. If incumbents took part in public financing, they would have to give up all that.
I have not studied the proposed legislation in detail, but there are a couple of things that I would be interested in learning more about.
First, the system would be voluntary and I have to wonder if that is a good thing. For such a campaign finance system to be completely fair, it seems to me that it would need to be mandatory. Second, I think there would have to be a way to counter any special interest money that may flow into a particular campaign. It is possible we will see an influx of campaign spending by these groups in the upcoming mid-term elections, but it’s not as if that hasn’t been a problem in the past. It seems that the 527 groups are already able to spend at will, attacking any candidate who happens to be on their villain list.
Honestly, I don’t know if public-financed campaigns are a good idea or not and I am sure there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument. I realize it is a Democrat idea, but it does have sponsors from both sides of the aisle and I think it merits a closer look than it has received heretofore. As always, the floor is open for debate.
Larry,
Asking sitting politicians to regulate and legislate their campaign financing is a tall order, for sure. Of all the things we in this country insist on having a voice in, campaign finance would seem to me to be the perfect test. These people work for us, not the other way around. How the people would gain control is beyond me…
The current attempt just irritates me. You and I, as citizens, will continue to have major restrictions on how much our contributions can be, and yet corporations (where the real money lies) have none? Maybe I’m missing something, but that seems to be exactly backwards of where we should be heading.
Money is where the truth lies. I keep going back to the issue of 527s. They are Constitutionally protected. They can say anything on behalf of a candidate or an issue, true or not. I’d be more interested in some legislation that ties these organizations more closely to their candidate or issue. Never going to happen, but still…
I think I mentioned this earlier, but the problems I had with McCain-Feingold had a lot to do with how an individual was restricted on how they could interact with a candidate, how much they could contribute, and in what fashion they could contribute. Right or wrong, those were my concerns about the law and the Supreme Court ruling did not address those concerns. Could public financing be the way to help level the playing field?
Larry,
I appreciate Political Realities tackling this issue. It seems the questions never get easier.
“Could public financing level the playing field?”
Not sure. My first answer is “only if ALL contributors-corporate or individuals- are treated equally under the law”.
The Supreme Court ruling bothered me in many ways, but my bottom line “itch” is that it appears that corporations will now be treated more equally, given that they can contribute whatever they wish while individuals are restricted. Effectively, nonvoting entities can have enormous influence in elections while the direct voting public is restricted. Any “public financing” law would have to address this discrepancy, in my mind.
I also think that the foreign influence can of worms is now wide open. I realize that there are laws on the books, but they are very specific and do not address US corporations that have foreign ownership. So, for example, Toyota of North America (a US corporation) could contribute campaign dollars etc. Under the SC ruling, I cannot see how they would not be allowed. Yet the driving force is actually a Japanese corporation. So it appears to me that it could be possible for Toyota of North America to contribute when it’s actually an agenda that comes from Japan. The bottom line question here, and one of the biggest reasons I think the SC was shortsighted in their ruling is: In today’s global economy, what exactly constitutes a US corporation?
Personally, I care little about the amount of money spent on campaigns—this is private money and stimulates certain sectors of the economy. I never have favored public funds for campaigns as I think its a waste of taxpayer money. The dangers exist with public funds as well as private, so I must come down on the side of private funds. I see your point LD and there are many who take your position. I do have some mixed feelings on this subject. It is a tough one to get a handle on with good folks on both sides. I must admit it is a gray area.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Without Warning: Super Bowl XLIV Cancelled!
I have to agree with Ron. It doesn’t bother me if one candidate has more money than another. To me it’s about ideas and principles, not who has the flashiest commercials. Besides, a large amount of spending by a campaign also helps ad companies, audio visual companies, local TV and radio stations, etc. Having mandatory public financing of all campaigns could make some races more competitive, but it seems a little un-American to tell someone they can only spend a certain amount of money, especially if it is their own personal money. Another thing to keep in mind is if we have public financing of all campaigns, our tax money may go to support candidates we do not approve of.
Also, some of the other comments mentioned that corporations can now give as much money as they want to a candidate. Correct me if I’m wrong, but corporations are still limited in how much money they can give to an individual candidate. I believe the recent Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to run advertisements with the freedom to say whatever they want within 60 days of an election, but does not allow them to give an unlimited amount of money directly to a candidate.
Interesting post. I see the benefits of public financing, but there seems to be to many negatives involved.
Forgotten Liberty´s last blog ..Sneaky Backdoor Tax Increase on the Middle Class
Forgotten Liberty,
First of all, thanks for commenting on Political Realities. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
I had already thought about your advertising point, but failed to mention it in the article. I was running behind with finishing it up and it may have been rushed a bit. Public financing would certainly take a lot of revenue away from the media. I realized when I was writing the article that there are pros and cons to this idea and that was one reason I wanted to write it and have this discussion.
Concerning campaign contributions by corporations and unions, here is what I have read, from the Federal Election Commission’s web page.
I take that to mean corporations can not contribute directly to a campaign, but can operate somewhat like a 527. I could be wrong about that, so feel free to correct me.
I think I have become confused on the money rules. I appreciate all the clarifications.
Media/production money: More to think about than just the obvious boost. Yep, some dollars go into the economy for production. Yes, megadollars go into media buys. Media outlets-and even some production companies- plan for this by jacking their rate cards high, to the detriment of every other business trying to advertise during that period, which sometimes lasts months and up to a year. Every local and regional business trying to stay on the airways takes a hit due to this, and it affects their budgets and often their bottom lines. National ad budgets take a hit, too, although the majority of harm to businesses comes in the local/regional areas.
I’ve been on both sides of this simultaneously. Large agency dealing with both private and political client. Once a political campaign has raised a dollar, they want it spent. So there is a massive frenzy to find available slots…And the outlets, realizing that slots are now filling up and are even more of a premium, jack the rates even higher. So, the local and regional advertisers have to take the ride and the hit.
The amount of money that was spent in the 2008 campaign blows my mind! And you didn’t even include the money that Hillary raised in the primaries.
I don’t know enough about the idea of public funded campaigns to have an opinion on whether they are a good idea but I do believe if they are voluntary that nobody will agree to it if they can raise more money on their own.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Can Republicans take back the Senate in November? It is in the air!
I too have mixed feelings on the issue. You all have voiced both sides of the issue well. On the substance of the playing field being tilted to favor corporate expressions I definitely agree it bends that way. No, they cannot give money directly to a candidate but they can spend unlimited amounts financing ads themselves in support of a candidate. I, unfortunately, do not have such unlimited funds to afford to pay for an ad for my candidate.
The whole time I was reading your article I was thinking back to Mike Huckabee. He didn’t come into this race with LOTS of money but a message many liked and he did incredibly well.
Then the NJ race. Again, not lots of money but a message the people liked. Scott Brown – comes out of nowhere and wins big because the people liked his message.
I can’t help wondering if government gets into the middle of this too, if we won’t see our ability to affect races change towards the negative. Even with power and money on their side, the Dems lost and lost big in Mass. No amount of money would have changed the anger people are feeling there.
I would rather see less government intrusion so that ‘we the people’ can do more. The restrictions (and I have often wondered like you guys why we are restricted and others aren’t) have not prevented us from winning and to be honest, I don’t think they will because truth trumps money any day.
Dominique´s last blog ..The power of PERSPECTIVE
I totally agree with you, Dominique. With the youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, and the internet in general, a candidate can get their message out even if they don’t have lots of money. I think the races in Mass and NJ are a perfect examples of a good message trumping money.
Forgotten Liberty´s last blog ..Sneaky Backdoor Tax Increase on the Middle Class
While I agree that the Internet and other tools are a great way to get the message out, traditional media-especially TV- still reigns supreme. He who spends the most-and has the most spent on his behalf-ususally wins.
In MA, for example: Not sure about the final totals, as neither candidate was willing to disclose exactly how much they had raised, and disclosure rules made it hard for anyone to press the point. We do know that Scott Brown had just over $300,000 on January 1st. Then he used the Internet for a national fundraising blitz that raised over 1.5 million on January 1st, and a million dillars a day for the next four days. We also know that the US Chmaber of Commerce spent $500,000 on a television campaign in the final 2 weeks and the Tea Party organization spent $200,000 in support of Brown.
While I have said that I think Brown ran a superior campaign, he definitely outspent his opponent in the final weeks of the campaign. This definitely helped him raise public awareness and to conquer double digit deficits. Money, indeed, mattered here. A lot.
whoops-left out some of the other know expenditures on Browns behalf:
Americans for Responsible Health Care spent $200,000 on two TV spots calling Brown “the nation’s best last chance to stop this harmful legislation.”
The Iowa-based conservative advocacy group American Future Fund has spent about $600,000 on an ad asserting Coakley “supports the reckless spending by Washington politicians.”
Without even trying, I have found several million dollars in out-of-state funds that were spent on behalf of Brown, most of it in the last three weeks of the campaign and coinciding with Browns huge move in the polls. Still think this was just a grassroots success, or do you agree that money mattered?
While that may be true Laurie, a huge chunk of his money was raised when Scott Brown did the Monday Bomb -or whatever it was called – and raised over 1 million in one day. I contributed that day as did thousands of Americans. That is how it is supposed to work. I don’t want to see my ability to contribute to be hampered by more regulation.
What Scott Brown accomplish and we witnessed in NJ and Virgina is now being seen in Florida with Marc Rubio and Texas with Medina. I know several every day Tea Party Americans who are entering the races for offices.
While money may seem like a hindrance, I still think truth wins out. We have now witnessed that in several states and I think we are going to witness it big in November.
Dominique´s last blog ..This is a crazy life