From Smoke-filled Rooms to Glitzy Dinners
In the wake of Watergate and the downfall of the Nixon Presidency, helped in part by a 27-year-old lawyer who was one of the members of the Majority Counsel, laws were passed for a Presidential Matching Fund and limits to campaign contributions in an effort to limit the power of wealthy powerbrokers and make it easier for unknown candidates to get a hearing at the Presidential level. The deal was simple: campaigns contributions were capped at $1000 for the primary and general election seasons. For Presidential elections, a candidate would receive matching funds for contributions of up to $250 in exchange for hard caps on spending and foregoing campaign contributions in the general elections, which would be equal for the two major parties, and distributed to third-party candidates if their party received at least 5% of the popular vote the preceeding general election on a sliding scale, with full parity at 25%. However, according to this Washington Post article (free registration required), that young lawyer, who is now the junior Senator from New York, has dealt what may very well be the final crippling blow to the Presidential Matching Fund, by refusing any and all federal funds for her Presidential campaign, in the hopes that she can raise more money than the strict limits of the Presidential Matching Fund allow.
Of course, one could very easily point to charges of hypocrisy for Senator Hillary Clinton, but Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), is also preparing to forego the Presidential Matching Fund for the primary, but the jury is still out for the general election, and nearly every top-tiered candidate is expected to forego the $50 million cap in the primary season. However, the danger of a ripple effect is obvious, as stated by the article:
Sadly, this trend is nothing new. In the lead-up to the 2000 election, then-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) realized that it was possible to exceed the then-$45 million cap with the bundling of $1000 donations and he would be able to avoid the strict state-by-state caps imposed by the Presidential Matching Fund. Other candidates cried foul, but lost the nomination. However, both then-Governor Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore accepted the funds for the general election. In 2004, bolstered by McCain-Feingold's increase of the donation cap to $2000 with adjustments made every two years by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), President Bush repeated his 2004 strategy, but this time he was joined by former Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in foregoing Presidential Matching Funds for the primary season, with both major party nominees shattering George W. Bush's 2000 fundraising record. However, with Senator Clinton announcing her intention to forego all public financing, the system may have reached its breaking point, with pressure ratcheting up on the Republican nominee to forego the funds as well if Senator Clinton wins the nomination.
This will be nothing short of a disaster, with the very real possibility of a Presidential campaign raising and spending over $1 billion in the not-too-distant future if this process continues unabated. However, we can and must stop this process now and prevent the Presidential Matching Fund from becoming a ghetto for less-financed candidates. Maine and Arizona show us how this can be done with their Clean Campaign Laws. In exchange for foregoing all private and personal fundraising, a candidate agrees to raise a fixed number of $5 contributions to be contributed to the Clean Campaign Fund. When that number is received, the candidate receives a check for a fixed amount, with certain stricter enforcement of disclosure laws for a candidate who opts out of public funds. For example, if a candidate's contributions exceeds the amount given to Clean Campaign candidates, that candidate is required to report all contributions within 24 hours, and every candidate who opted in and qualifies receives a matching contribution. In the 2002 Arizona gubernatorial race, Janet Napolitano (D) qualified and her opponent raised far beyond the public funds, giving her an equal amount of millions. Republicans complained, but to no avail as it was determined that no one has a Constiutional right to outspend his or her opponent by a 5:1 ratio, and Napolitano won. In the 2006 Maine gubernatorial election, Governor John Balducci (D) opted out of the Clean Campaign Fund, but didn't raise over $404,000 for fear of the matching funds that his opponents would have received.
If this model is followed, will have a situation where more and more candidates opt in to the system, rather than our current system where more candidates opt out every cycle. I would be willing to wager that most Presidential candidates would gladly forego the endless campaign fundraisers if all they had to do was receive, say 200,000 $5 donations and be guaranteed equal funding to every candidate in the field. Not only that, but that would make candidates spend more time talking to everyday people instead of those who can write $2300 checks. By doing so, we will no longer have a situation where the interests of the wealthy few outweigh the needs and interests of the people, and most candidates will avoid making personal attacks and we will have an election that hinges on the issues rather than personalities and endless discussions of the horserace.
Unfortunately, there are some who are well-intentioned who may very well take us down the same road as the current Presidential Matching Fund here in West Virginia. A coalition met yesterday for Public Financing Day at the State Legislature, but their plan as currently proposed has huge flaws. For example, all donations must be received from inside the district. This may not seem like a difficult hurdle to clear, but with many districts being single-member House of Delegates districts that are part of one county, and a lot of the political activists in different portions of the county, it would be very difficult for a candidate to receive the 100 donations needed to qualify for the funds. Considering that candidates who opt out can raise money from anywhere in the US, I see no reason why Clean Campaign candidates shouldn't be allowed to receive the contributions statewide. (The proposal increases the number of required contributions by 25 for each member in the Delegate District.) Then, there is the more serious problem, for a single-member district, the fund is $7500, with matching funds for opponent's spending up to triple the initial amount. In other words, if someone can raise over $22,500, they will be able to do so to the detriment of their Clean Campaign funded opponent. (The initial funds increases by $2500 per member in the district, with the cap increasing by $7500.) If we make those simple changes to the proposal, we can have a system that makes local elections fairer and will allow more people a chance to get involved in the political process. If this bill goes through unamended, we will have the very real danger of repeating the same mistakes of the Presidential Matching Fund.
"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce."-- Molly Ivins (1944-2007). This post is dedicated to her memory.
Update: Here is the proposed law . -Amos
Update: Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards have also decided to forego public financing for the primary and general elections. Information can be found here. -Albert
Of course, one could very easily point to charges of hypocrisy for Senator Hillary Clinton, but Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), is also preparing to forego the Presidential Matching Fund for the primary, but the jury is still out for the general election, and nearly every top-tiered candidate is expected to forego the $50 million cap in the primary season. However, the danger of a ripple effect is obvious, as stated by the article:
Clinton's decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.
One effect is to put lesser-known candidates at a further disadvantage in competing with rivals who have the capacity to raise huge amounts of money.
"It's going to be a tremendous test of whether this system survives," Robert Lenhard, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said of the pressure building on the existing system. Michael Toner, his predecessor, was less restrained. This election, he predicted, will be "basically the death" of public financing.
Sadly, this trend is nothing new. In the lead-up to the 2000 election, then-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) realized that it was possible to exceed the then-$45 million cap with the bundling of $1000 donations and he would be able to avoid the strict state-by-state caps imposed by the Presidential Matching Fund. Other candidates cried foul, but lost the nomination. However, both then-Governor Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore accepted the funds for the general election. In 2004, bolstered by McCain-Feingold's increase of the donation cap to $2000 with adjustments made every two years by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), President Bush repeated his 2004 strategy, but this time he was joined by former Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in foregoing Presidential Matching Funds for the primary season, with both major party nominees shattering George W. Bush's 2000 fundraising record. However, with Senator Clinton announcing her intention to forego all public financing, the system may have reached its breaking point, with pressure ratcheting up on the Republican nominee to forego the funds as well if Senator Clinton wins the nomination.
This will be nothing short of a disaster, with the very real possibility of a Presidential campaign raising and spending over $1 billion in the not-too-distant future if this process continues unabated. However, we can and must stop this process now and prevent the Presidential Matching Fund from becoming a ghetto for less-financed candidates. Maine and Arizona show us how this can be done with their Clean Campaign Laws. In exchange for foregoing all private and personal fundraising, a candidate agrees to raise a fixed number of $5 contributions to be contributed to the Clean Campaign Fund. When that number is received, the candidate receives a check for a fixed amount, with certain stricter enforcement of disclosure laws for a candidate who opts out of public funds. For example, if a candidate's contributions exceeds the amount given to Clean Campaign candidates, that candidate is required to report all contributions within 24 hours, and every candidate who opted in and qualifies receives a matching contribution. In the 2002 Arizona gubernatorial race, Janet Napolitano (D) qualified and her opponent raised far beyond the public funds, giving her an equal amount of millions. Republicans complained, but to no avail as it was determined that no one has a Constiutional right to outspend his or her opponent by a 5:1 ratio, and Napolitano won. In the 2006 Maine gubernatorial election, Governor John Balducci (D) opted out of the Clean Campaign Fund, but didn't raise over $404,000 for fear of the matching funds that his opponents would have received.
If this model is followed, will have a situation where more and more candidates opt in to the system, rather than our current system where more candidates opt out every cycle. I would be willing to wager that most Presidential candidates would gladly forego the endless campaign fundraisers if all they had to do was receive, say 200,000 $5 donations and be guaranteed equal funding to every candidate in the field. Not only that, but that would make candidates spend more time talking to everyday people instead of those who can write $2300 checks. By doing so, we will no longer have a situation where the interests of the wealthy few outweigh the needs and interests of the people, and most candidates will avoid making personal attacks and we will have an election that hinges on the issues rather than personalities and endless discussions of the horserace.
Unfortunately, there are some who are well-intentioned who may very well take us down the same road as the current Presidential Matching Fund here in West Virginia. A coalition met yesterday for Public Financing Day at the State Legislature, but their plan as currently proposed has huge flaws. For example, all donations must be received from inside the district. This may not seem like a difficult hurdle to clear, but with many districts being single-member House of Delegates districts that are part of one county, and a lot of the political activists in different portions of the county, it would be very difficult for a candidate to receive the 100 donations needed to qualify for the funds. Considering that candidates who opt out can raise money from anywhere in the US, I see no reason why Clean Campaign candidates shouldn't be allowed to receive the contributions statewide. (The proposal increases the number of required contributions by 25 for each member in the Delegate District.) Then, there is the more serious problem, for a single-member district, the fund is $7500, with matching funds for opponent's spending up to triple the initial amount. In other words, if someone can raise over $22,500, they will be able to do so to the detriment of their Clean Campaign funded opponent. (The initial funds increases by $2500 per member in the district, with the cap increasing by $7500.) If we make those simple changes to the proposal, we can have a system that makes local elections fairer and will allow more people a chance to get involved in the political process. If this bill goes through unamended, we will have the very real danger of repeating the same mistakes of the Presidential Matching Fund.
"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce."-- Molly Ivins (1944-2007). This post is dedicated to her memory.
Update: Here is the proposed law . -Amos
Update: Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards have also decided to forego public financing for the primary and general elections. Information can be found here. -Albert
posted by Albert McStephenson at 1:12 PM
2 Comments:
Albert-
It is good to see that West Virginians are looking towards more inclusive demcoracy, but somehow I highly doubt we'll see this issue get past the legislature. I know of a few Delegates or Senators who would support it, but don't see large support for it in general. Wihtout the governor to push it, who will care? where can we keep track of this issue?
You can either go on the State Legislature's website to track the bill, or go to http://www.wvoter-owned.org to find out how the bill is doing. (On that site, the bill numbers are listed so you can track them at the legislature's site.) I am a firm believer in public financing, but I don't want us to repeat the same mistakes that the federal government made in 1974, especially when candidates are already raising above the cap. (For example, the most costly House of Delegates race was Doug Reynolds in the 16th District [Cabell and a small part of Wayne] who raised $187,000 in a three-member district, or roughly five times the proposed cap of $37,500 for a three-member district, and the most expensive Senate race was in the 9th District [Raleigh and Wyoming] where Green raised over $300,000 in his race against Weeks, which is nearly triple the proposed $105,000 cap for State Senate races.) If you want public financing to work, you can't tie candidate's hands behind their backs.
Post a Comment
<< Home