A simple, workable, voluntary campaign finance reform idea.
Kari Chisholm
Over at DailyKos yesterday, Markos took the opportunity of another stupid WSJ editorial to raise the issue of campaign finance reform. He's repeatedly argued that we should stop tinkering, and do some kind of major reform.
So, here's an idea that I've had brewing in my head for a while that takes voter-owned elections and goes national.
Let's create a voluntary campaign finance reform that does the following:
In each congressional district, after the primary, any major-party candidate could voluntarily choose to forgo all private financing - and instead receive a single check of $1 million in public funds for their general election campaign. If their opponent raised more than that, they'd get matching funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
Some notes on the jump...
* To be sure, this would leave in place the problem of private financing of primary campaigns -- but if you try and deal with that, you get into the problem of deciding which campaigns are legit. Baby steps.
* And yes, you'd have the problem of independent expenditures - but that's an existing problem with the current system. This idea doesn't make that worse (and might make it better - see below.) Again, baby steps.
* You might notice I'm not talking about U.S. Senate campaigns. We could get there soon enough; but you'd need some way of adjusting the amounts based on population - and media markets. (NC and NJ have roughly the same population, but NJ is much more expensive due to the NYC and Philly media markets.) Say it with me: Baby steps.
* We'd define major-party as any party that got over 20% of the vote in any of the three previous biennial elections in that congressional district, or in the statewide total in the last gubernatorial or presidential election. Minor parties could "earn" their way to funding.
* No, campaigns wouldn't be allowed to bank money after the election - nor would they be allowed to transfer it to other campaigns. There's already some good FEC rules about what spending is appropriate, so no worries about wacky sure-loser challengers running off to Maui with the money.
Enough of the disclaimers -- what would this mean?
* We remove the fundraising burden from congressional candidates in the general election. This frees up huge amounts of time to do what candidates should be doing -- talking to voters. (Not to mention what incumbents should be doing -- their day job.)
* Sure, a million bucks is less than most of the top-tier congressional campaigns spend these days. But what would you choose? A single million-dollar check on the day after the primary - or months and months of dialing for dollars 20 hours a week?
* Even if the top-tiers all opt out, that still puts a million dollars in the hands of lots and lots of second- and third- and fourth- tier campaigns. That's bound to make a bunch of districts competitive that wouldn't otherwise get there. (In 2004, the average incumbent raised $1.1 million while the average challenger raised $277,000. Source: opensecrets.org.)
* And more competitive seats will make the independent expenditure guys crazy - more competitive seats means it's tougher to game the system and target particular seats. As I said, independent expenditures are a fact of life - and this won't fix that; but it's a big move in the right direction.
* The dollar-for-dollar match is critical, since it wipes out the incentive for campaigns to "go private" and raise $3 or $4 million bucks. Why raise more money when your opponent will just get a check to match?
Yeah, you'd probably get a bunch of people out there screaming about "giving taxpayer dollars to politicians" - but that's why we make it voluntary. If a candidate wants to go the "traditional" route, fine.
If both major-party candidates in all 435 seats opted for public financing, we'd only be talking about $870 million every two years. That's less than the cost of four days in Iraq; or put another way, about a buck-fifty per American per year.
Not a bad price to pay to buy back the time of our incumbents and challengers -- get 'em talking to voters, rather than dialing for dollars.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:28 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Not too bad of an idea, since they end up spending a good portion of their money bringing in more money (fundraisers, letters to supporters, etc.).
They could instead focus on being out there talking to voters, holding town hall type events, utilizing volunteers, etc.
It takes a lot of work to raise money. I sure wish we had some kind of public financing for the city council here in Gresham. I'd take a few thousand in money that way, rather than having to be out raising it. Because every moment I spend trying to bring in money is a moment I could be out speaking to voters.
And you have to raise money just to get money - you need remit envelopes, a way to take donations online (wish Act Blue did local races), etc.
Sep 26, '07
Sounds like a great idea Kari. If it will prevent war mongers like Hillary getting in there, all the better. They will NOT take my sons for their new Iran adventure.
Sep 26, '07
It will just be a matter of time before someone brings up the First Amendment to oppose this proposal.
Opponents of reform prefer to leave the corrupt and corrupting campaign financing system in its deplorable condition. To add a note of respectability they cite the First Amendment in support of their arguments as if the part about free speech were a guiding principle this nation constantly adheres to.
Just so we are talking about the same thing, let’s read this Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now let’s focus on the part about speech: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...”
The justices of the Supreme Court and the ACLU appear to believe that the preceding means what it says, but let’s get in touch with reality. Congress has made many laws abridging freedom of speech, and some of them were created on the occasional days when senators and representatives behaved with intelligence. The more obvious of these sensible restrictions that prohibit us from saying what we might want to say include the laws of libel and slander. Being prohibited from telling genuinely classified information to others without a need to know makes eminent good sense. The same goes for revealing data protected by the Privacy Act. And the Supremes and the ACLU have approved these laws.
Of course, Congress being populated by politicians does get it wrong on occasions. Try speaking out or wearing a T-shirt or unfurling a banner expressing anti-establishment sentiments in the halls of Congress and you will very likely find that not only will your freedom of speech be abridged but so will your ability to walk beyond the confines of a cell in the jail nearest to the Capitol.
But there is another means by which freedom of speech is abridged in a sensible manner that is not only practiced in Congress but in state capitols and countless other assemblies across the nation and around the world; that is, parliamentary rules of order. When running for political office, candidates submit to similar rules, mostly without complaint, and the ensuing debates are relatively fair giving potential voters a reasonably good understanding of what they have to choose from.
So, if in these circumstances we can have all people involved agree on a fair and responsible format for debates, why can’t we do the same thing when it comes to financing political campaigns? After all, isn’t a political campaign a form of debate?
Opponents of campaign finance reform will say that people should be able to contribute as much money as they want to support the candidate of their choice and claim any prohibition as a violation of their freedom of speech. That is meretricious nonsense. What they are saying is that if they have a megaphone they should be able to use it, even if the candidate they oppose has laryngitis. That isn’t democracy. That is how bullies play to win.
12:50 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Regarding freedom of speech... I'm suggesting a VOLUNTARY limitation on spending that comes with voluntarily accepting public funds.
It passes constitutional muster. We've already had a system like this at the presidential level for 30 years. (That has it's own problems, but constitutionality isn't one of them.)
1:01 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
I'm no constitutional law expert, but it seems to me like this proposal doesn't run into the same 1st amendment issues that many other campaign finance laws do. The choice to accept private or public money is entirely in the hands of the campaign. The government isn't preventing or restricting an individual's right to freedom of speech through campaign contributions, the campaign is just choosing not to accept them, nor is the campaign's freedom of expression threatened. If anything, it just gives the campaign more choices.
Sep 26, '07
Campaign finance reform is a good step, but it will do very little to push incumbents in safe seats to better represent their constituents instead of big business.
Take Earl Blumenauer, for example--he represents one of the most progressive districts in the country, yet refuses to consistently vote against the Bush trade agenda. Just yesterday, Earl supported the latest in this long line of disasterous deals for American workers and Latin American farmers--the US-Peru FTA. Earl refused to talk about it at his Town Hall, even though it was the second most mentioned issue, and four activists were even arrested at his office when they failed to get a commitment from him to vote against it.
Check out the story over at blogtown pdx: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/09/labor_activists_camp_out_in_bl.php
1:52 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Giving money only to major party candidates, and only after being selected in a primary, hardly corrects the overriding problem with current campaign finance--it's a guild. Perhaps it would be beneficial if the big boys took less money, but a large part of the point should be to bring new voices to the table. Small party candidates at a minimum must be eligible for the money as well, and I'd like to see it available for major party candidates pre-primary as well. Think what kind of race you might have if the Greens, Libertarians, Constitution and WFP candidates all got put on the same level as the big boys!
Sep 26, '07
So if it's a "voluntary program" then I assume you'll fund it with voluntary donations?
Good luck, voluntary participation in the Presidential Public Finance Fund check off on tax returns has been plummetting for years. Even though you get a full credit for the $3 checkoff, no one wants to do it anymore ( only 7.3% participation for 2006).
A statewide public financing proposal was roundly thumped in California this last year (losing 3-1).
Portland's VOE is a joke: all incumbents were re-elected in the primary, only three people qualified, and one of them cheated.
Keep dreaming.
2:02 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
"Portland's VOE is a joke: all incumbents were re-elected in the primary, only three people qualified, and one of them cheated."
And yet it worked largely as designed, didn't it? The violators never sniffed office, the ones who followed the rules opened up their books and proved they were clean, and even the incumbent who didn't take the money vastly curtailed his own spending. Some joke.
2:31 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Small party candidates at a minimum must be eligible for the money as well, and I'd like to see it available for major party candidates pre-primary as well.
Yeah, I agree, in principle. But I think baby steps are in order.
You'd have to figure out how the small-party candidates should be eligible. In some states, it's VERY easy to create a new party -- we don't want to be handing over million-dollar checks to every wacko group that can collect a few thousand signatures. (That's bound to be rife for abuse.)
That's why I'm arguing that any party that gets to 20% of the vote either in that district or in a statewide top-of-the-ticket race should get the public financing too.
2:37 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
We did a non-scientific poll about campaign finance reform over at the Washington County Dems website a couple months ago, click the link to see results: Washco Dems Poll
2:50 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Sign me up, Kari. It's gotta start somewhere and this seems as good a place as any and better than most of the alternatives I've heard. I don't see any 1st amendment problems with this - which is a huge plus.
Sep 26, '07
How about Australia's campaign finance system?
3:34 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
Paul, do tell more.
3:36 p.m.
Sep 26, '07
First off, I like the idea. I'd be prepared to support it as is, recognizing that it's a provisional step. As envisioned, it's a big improvement over the current model (Though at the moment Dems see their ascendancy into majority-party status, it does stand to damage them the most by empowering challengers. I'm still for it, but not all Dems would be.)
But I'm with Torrid. It wouldn't be too difficult to add third parties into the mix. A version of Portland's public financing scheme would be easy to add at the outset without much destabilizing the baby-step approach. You assign a percentage of the Congressional District and either make candidates raise $5 or get signatures. Make it substantial enough so that it demonstrates real support. The problem with 20% is that it's a catch-22. Allowing candidates to employ shoe-leather to create support both strengthens the democratic process and empowers a broader political voice.
Sep 26, '07
Whereas any good idea could be tinkered to death, i'd say heck ya in an instant. See how it works in reality and adapt. Down the road adopt it for other races, Senate, Guv, etc. keeewelll....
Sep 26, '07
Any reform that increases the chances of a third or fourth viable party will be fought vigorously with no holds barred in a bi-partisan effort by the oligarchs of both major parties.
Any successful reform to retake the republic from the corporatocracy and their partners in Congress will require the American people to become citizens instead of consumers and couch potatoes. Until they raise the level of their political intelligence quotient and demonstrate a commitment to work towards a nation with liberty and justice (including economic justice) for all reforms will be very limited.
2:15 a.m.
Sep 27, '07
Jeff Alworth's proposal makes this much more palatable to me and also makes the comparison to Portland's VOE more apt.
However, I wonder if it really would stop the fundraising, or just free up reps. to put more money into their PACs? Until the law allowing candidates to keep unused contributions and do anything they want with them is changed, a central dynamic in influence peddling probably will persist.
Sep 27, '07
A fundamental aspect of the human condition we have to keep in mind when trying to organize or improve a society is that some people have a lust for power, and once they get it they will do whatever they must to keep it, whereupon Lord Acton's dictum about the corrupting effects of power takes over. The oligarchs of both major parties have shown for decades they want to be in control and the rabble be damned. And, they still do. For example: "Impeachment is off the table" and ending the war on Iraq. So, too, the peons can be treated with contempt when it comes to campaign finance reform and the party leaders are aided and abetted by the sheep in their respective flocks.
Sep 27, '07
Great idea that will never pass because we have no national referendum process, and the folks who would vote on it have an interest in keeping things as they are. Just which 218 members of the House would like to see their next opponent[s] qualify for $1 million in campaign funds when incumbency confers a huge fundraising advantage?
4:42 p.m.
Sep 27, '07
However, I wonder if it really would stop the fundraising, or just free up reps. to put more money into their PACs? Until the law allowing candidates to keep unused contributions and do anything they want with them is changed, a central dynamic in influence peddling probably will persist.
Chris... First of all, the whole idea is that if a candidatse agrees to the public financing they stop fundraising. We should probably think about the issue of Leadership PACs - but that's kind of the point.
Second, I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding "keeping" unused contributions. Converting campaign money into personal money has been barred for a couple of decades now. When a campaign account closes, the money must either be returned to donors, donated to other campaigns, or donated to charity. In practice, it always gets donated to other campaigns (if there's any left.)
7:01 p.m.
Sep 27, '07
Kari,
O.k., just be sure to craft your law to make sure that taking the public money really does stop fundraising, as opposed to just not spending privately gained funds. As far as I know, laws along these lines have restricted spending, not the actual fundraising. For a challenger that relief from fundraising might be a significant aid in itself in conducting and effective campaign, but if incumbents use this I am not so sure.
Sorry for a perhaps infelicitous shorthand. By "keep" it I meant exactly the middle option to which you refer -- keeping it to donate to other campaigns as a form of patronage. That certainly is of huge personal benefit in the acquisition of power and influence. Often that power later is converted to personal income in various way. Also, the ability to keep money for use in own future campaigns exists, doesn't it? The amassing of such "war chests" is an important element in the powers that make incumbents so hard to challenge.
Sep 30, '07
Kari, Sorry, was out of town at a conference. Australia has no campaign finance regulation. You can, literally, launder foreign money through shell corporations and use it to finance campaigns.
On the other hand, they have centralized election administration.
Just saying, there is no necessary correlation between campaign finance and corruption.
12:40 a.m.
Oct 1, '07
Paul -- that would seem to imply that there's no corruption in Australia, which I'm not sure I buy without more evidence.
And second, my argument has never been about corruption. In fact, when testifying before the Portland City Council, I explicitly stated, "It's not about 'dirty' money."
Rather, I believe that we need public funding for campaigns so that we're able to buy back the TIME of our candidates and elected officials. Candidates are better off spending their time talking to voters, and elected officials should spend their time doing their job.
<h2>I suggest reading my 3 minutes of testimony on Voter-Owned Elections in full.</h2>