Answering the Critics
By Joan Mandle, Democracy Matters
1. NOT WITH MY TAXES, YOU DON’T.
Many people are concerned that public financing will raise taxes. But taxpayers actually save money if politicians were not funded by special interests in return for tax breaks, special favors, and government bailouts. Only public financing can ensure that tax dollars are spent in the interests of all the people, not wasted in order to pay back campaign contributors.
It is estimated that public financing would cost less than $10 a year for each taxpayer in the
2. I DON’T WANT TO SUPPORT CORRUPT POLITICIANS OR DAVID DUKE.
Public financing will support all eligible and serious candidates. Criteria are set to make sure that candidates with no real support cannot qualify for public funds. However, all serious candidates would have an equal chance to qualify for public financing, regardless of their views. This is real democracy at work –- everyone has an equal chance to air their opinions, as well as to object to the views of others.
Voters in this system will have a real choice among a wide diversity of candidates. If a politician is corrupt or has loathsome views, challengers supported by public financing will be able to communicate this information to the voters. Right now these folks can run as long as they have money. Public financing facilitates an electoral process with more information and more choice of candidates. Together these create a strong democracy.
3. NO ONE CARES ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
Polling indicates that there is widespread concern about our electoral process. In 1997, a poll by the Center for Responsive Politics found that almost 2/3 of Americans thought that campaign finance reform and reducing the role of money in politics should be a top or high priority.
In another poll taken in March 2000 by the Mellman Group, a clear majority favored clean money, full public financing, to reform our current campaign finance system. Of the respondents, 87% thought that members of Congress are too influenced by special interest contributions.
4. I WON’T SUPPORT WASTEFUL SPENDING.
The best way to rid our government of wasteful spending is to eliminate the dependence of politicians on wealthy donors and special interests who want a pay-back for their support of campaigns. This is the heart of the corruption that regularly returns incumbents to office because they have a huge fund-raising advantage over challengers. Typically 95%-99% of Congressional incumbents are re-elected. In 2000, the average House incumbent spent 6 times more money than challengers, while the average incumbent Senator outspent rivals 5 to 1. With public financing, the playing field is more even among candidates, and when publicly financed candidates are elected our tax dollars can go where they belong -- to public needs rather to pay back monied interests. That’s the real source of waste.
5. THE RICH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL BY OUTSPENDING EVERYONE.
The system of public financing is voluntary. A candidate who refuses to take public funds and abide by spending limits can raise and spend as much as he or she wants to. However, public financing offers other candidates the chance to get their message out to the public to win support. After a certain point, additional spending does not mean as much. In addition, publicly funded candidates can and should point out that unlike those dependent on private funding, if elected they will be beholden to all the people and not just to big campaign funders.
6. THIS HAS NEVER WORKED BEFORE.
Systems of partial public financing have been part of our political process for a long time: in a dozen states, candidates for office can receive matching public funds. This is also the case in such cities as Los Angeles, New York, Oakland CA, Boulder CO, and Tucson AZ. Decades worth of experience has shown that public financing enhances the democratic nature of election campaigns. In almost all democratic countries other than the
7. I AM TOO BUSY WORKING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, FOR WOMEN’S AND CIVIL RIGHTS, FOR HEALTH CARE, OR GLOBAL JUSTICE.
Public financing of elections affects ALL the issues mentioned above and hundreds of others as well. Public financing is the reform that allows all other reforms to be accomplished. It ensures that elected officials are responsive to the majority of the electorate rather than to the tiny proportion that funds their campaigns. By providing public funding for campaigns of those who care about the environment, about heath care, about
8. IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The courts, including the Supreme Court in its Buckley v Valeo decision, have consistently expressed concern about reforms that would limit the amount of contributions to or spending in campaigns. They have done so primarily because of free speech considerations – the argument that to constrain contributions or spending would limit the political discourse.
Public financing does just the opposite. It allows for more political speech by a larger and more diverse group of candidates. In that sense, it enhances free speech by providing more individuals an opportunity to get their political message out to the public and perhaps be elected to office as a result. With the fair funding that public financing represents, not only those who can call on wealthy special interests to fund their campaigns can speak, but anyone who is a serious candidate. Rather than limiting it, public financing broadens the political dialogue and in this way enhances democracy.
9. FULL DISCLOSURE, BCRA, AND OTHER REFORMS ARE ENOUGH
Full disclosure of the names and occupations of major campaign contributors of course is essential to the democratic process. This is the case with contributors of soft money as well. The public has the right to know to whom and to what interests its elected officials are beholden. Electronic filing -- using the internet to enhance disclosure -- is an important step in giving the public access to this information. And the control of soft money that BCRA (the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act known as McCain/Feingold) has initiated are first steps in controlling the spiraling spending of campaigns and the dependence of candidates on wealthy special interests.
However, these reforms are not enough. It is not realistic to expect that in a country where less than half the people even vote, most citizens will make the effort and devote the time needed to analyze campaign contributions. And BCRA, though important in focusing on the problem of soft money, has only begun to curb the influence of big spenders. In fact the legal limit of individual contributions to federal candidates has doubled with the implementation of BCRA.
Only public financing of elections can ensure a more level playing field so that money is not the prime determinant of who runs, who is elected, and what social policies they support. Only public financing can create a democracy in which any citizen can choose to run for office, and where all citizens can have an equal influence in elections.
10. THE PRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM IS BROKEN
The Presidential public financing system was created in 1976 as part of Federal Election Campaign Act. It was thought that the Presidential race was so important that candidacies should not have to depend on wealth or the ability to raise large sums of money. In addition there was concern that constant increases in campaign spending were spiraling out of control. The Congress voted that candidates could opt to limit their spending and in turn receive public financing – partial matching funds in the primary and full funding in the general election. Every candidate for President since then participated in this public financing system until 2000, when George Bush refused public matching funds in the primary in favor raising private funds for his campaign. And in fact, he raised more and spent more than the limits for publicly financed candidates. In 2004, not only has George Bush refused public financing, but in response, so too have some Democratic candidates.
However, the breakdown of the Presidential public financing system does not mean that public financing can’t work. What it shows is that we need a better system of public financing -- like the one that is working so well in
The lesson is that if you are a good candidate in a well-structured public financing system, you can defeat privately funded candidates and open up the election system to anyone who is a serious candidate – regardless of their wealth. The Presidential public financing system needs to be saved by providing generous public funding to candidates.
11. PRIVATELY FINANCED ELECTIONS DON’T COST TAXPAYERS ANYTHING.
The actual cost of privately funded elections may not come from tax money but the consequences of this system are costing taxpayers millions of dollars. These consequences include myriad tax breaks, subsidies, regulatory exemptions, bail-outs and other favors that elected officials regularly perform for their financial backers. As Public Campaign reported in 1998: “Every year, the average American taxpayer shells out more than $1000 in federal income taxes so the government can keep some very important taxpayers on welfare. Those taxpayers are better known as corporations, and according to a trenchant series in Time magazine by investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele, a privileged group of well-connected and savvy businesses milk $125 billion a year out of the U.S. Treasury in grants, subsidies, low-interest loans, tax credits, exemptions, deductions and deferrals. “
12. SPECIAL INTERESTS BALANCE EACH OTHER OUT.
There is a vast array of “special interests” who try to influence legislation. But some are more powerful than others. Here are just a few examples of total contributions to federal campaigns and parties:
In 1998 Pro-energy interests outspent environmentalists 50 to 1
In 1997 to 1998 gun control advocates donated $172,000 to campaign while opponents to gun control donated $4,579,000
In 2002 Gun Control advocates $136,256; Opponents $ 2,790,045
2002 Business advocates $1,008,141,137 Labor $96,577,777 Ideological Groups $90,000,000
13. MONEY ONLY BUYS ACCESS – NOT VOTES
“Senators and representatives, faced constantly with the need to raise ever more money to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question ‘How will this affect my fundraising prospects?’ rather than ‘How will this affect the national interest?’” former “What goes on every day in “The payoff may be as obvious and overt as a floor vote in favor of a contributors’ desired tax loophole or appropriation. Or it may be subtle…a floor speech not delivered...a bill pigeon-holed in subcommittee…an amendment not offered, or a private conversation with four or five key colleagues in the privacy of the cloakroom.” former
14. CONTRIBUTING MONEY IS AN IMPORTANT WAY TO PARTICIPATE
Making sure that citizens participate in a democracy is important, but it is just as important to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate. That’s why each citizen has one and only one vote. But because wealth is so unequally distributed in the
********************************* These data, examples, and much much more can be found easily on the web. Consult the following websites for more up-to-date information on money and politics: www.publicampaign.org Especially their press releases and OUCH! archives www.opensecrets.org For national data and commentary www.followthemoney.org For state-based data www.democracymatters.org For “Money on My Mind” and “Newsroom” – monthly original commentary and information. |