Financing Elections Democratically

Author: Jay Mandle

What would happen if the United States funded the Defense Department through private contributions? Would those sections of the country that contribute more to defense be better protected than those that gave less? If the interstate highway system were paid for by the donations of private citizens, how likely is it that the nation’s transportation system would serve the entire country and not just those who foot the bill?

The answers to such questions are obvious. Few would doubt that if these services were privately financed, their benefits would be biased toward the funders. The interests of the rest of the population would at best be an afterthought. As damaging as such a system would be, what then is to be said about a political system in which the wealthy provide the bulk of financing? Certainly it would not be a stretch to say that a political system paid for by the affluent is one that will be disproportionately responsive to the well-off and less attentive to the needs of the rest of the population.

Funding for elections in a democracy should not depend on an economic elite. When electoral campaigns are paid for by the rich, the substance of politics is confined to the issues and policies that wealthy funders approve of. To be sure, the electorate gets to vote. But the choices presented to voters are, at best, those that are acceptable to the wealthy. At worst of course, such a system is simply corrupt.

Almost all economically developed democracies have tried to reduce the importance of private money in elections. A study by the Center for a New Democracy and The Center for Responsive Politics showed that only the United States, Ireland, and Switzerland do not either provide public financing for candidates to the national legislature, or restrict the expenditures of such candidates. Further, the United States is alone in not providing free media time to office seekers. Presidential candidates in this country did have the option of funding their campaigns with public money , but no serious candidate any longer chooses to do so.  In addition, a few states like Connecticut and Maine offer significant public financing for candidates who are running for state offices, as do a number of cities like New York, Washington DC, Seattle,and Tucson, and some counties in Maryland and New York states as well.  Nevertheless the United States lags behind virtually all of the developed world in the effort to democratize elections.

The dominance of the rich is now so blatant that even politicians who benefit from it are (sometimes) ashamed.  With both their direct contributions to campaigns, and their so-called “independent” unlimited spending that floods  SuperPACS, the ultra-rich dominate who runs for office and who wins. The result is that poliicians dependence on the rich for political success means that the wealthy effectively shape the policies and laws that politicians support – laws that affect all of our lives.

But what about a reform that makes public money available to candidates for their campaigns? Public campaign financing provides funds directly to viable candidates, enabling them to present their ideas and policies without considering the impact  on potential contributors. With it, there would be no need for concern about the power of wealthy contributors to dominate outrpolitical system.

Many argue against reform however.  They often concede the many advantages associated with public financing of elections: increased electoral competitiveness; more diverse candidates; elected officials no longer dependent on rich donors; a better flow of information to voters; and an increase in the number of well-qualified candidates. But many think it is not possible to pass comprehensive public campaign financing in this country – they argue that it is “off the charts politically.” A further obstacle is the antipathy of the American people to government social programs. The criticism made by these opponents of reform that public financing represents “welfare for politicians” brilliantly taps into this hostility. This attitude therefore must change if we are to democratize our electoral system.

To convince the American people to support the public financing of elections it will be necessary to persuade them that elections are a “public good.” Public goods are services that by their nature tend to be shared by not only those who pay but also by those who do not pay. Their use by one person generally does not preclude their use by others. Because of the collective way they are consumed, it is logical that they be purchased socially. If there is an attempt to have public goods privately paid for their availability becomes inadequate and their use distorted. If we tried to have our roads paid for privately we would wind up with a patchwork of toll roads located where users dictate instead of a network that links the whole society together. The same is true with regard to policing. With private consumption police would work to ensure the safety of those willing to pay, while the rest would go unprotected. As a consequence the society would be deprived of any hope of a consistent and fair administration of justice.

Many of the same attributes that make the nation’s defense or highway system public goods are present in the electoral system. The outcome of elections affect all of the people of the country, whether or not they financially contribute to campaigns. In politics, of course, the problem is not that campaigns are under financed – the deep pockets of wealthy special interests ensure that that is not the case. But the generosity of private funders does corrupt and distort the electoral process. Just as we would not want the highway system to serve private as opposed to public needs, or the police to protect one group of citizens but not others, we should not be satisfied when every election is little more than an exercise in which the wealthy seek access and influence by contributing to the campaign war chests of politicians. The solution is for the community as a whole to foot the bill. Voters have to be persuaded that the electoral system is just as important to the health – in this case the democratic health – of the nation as the defense budget, airports, highways, schools, and law enforcement. The costs of electoral campaigns should be paid for out of tax revenues. Doing so would ensure that their outcomes reflect the interests of all of the members of the electorate, not just the privileged few.

Obviously it is going to take a great deal of educational and political work to convince voters to look at elections in this way. But until that is done, we will not be able to alter the reality that the private funding of electoral campaigns is the means by which the affluent set the political agenda. For reform to happen, grassroots pressure is required. In its absence not much will change. Politicians have too great a stake in the current system. In short, campaign finance reform is a cause in need of a social movement.

There is reason for hope in this regard. Recent experience has convinced at least some activists that solving global economic and environmental problems cannot be accomplished so long as the rich dominate our politicial system. And activists focused on other issues also understand that without changing the campaign financing system in the United States, the progressive reforms they advocate will be blocked. People in a wide-range of social movements increasingly recognize that the road-block to progress is the role of private wealth in our politics.

A second source of hope has been the democratizing of the electoral process in cities and states around the country. The passage of public campapign financing in at least some states, cities and counties in the United States is the result of dedicated local organizers, working far outside of the glare of national publicity. Organizers know that triumphs at the state and local level are critical in the struggle for national reform. Indeed, the history of progressive politics in the United States suggests that the momentum for federal legislation must bubble up from the grassroots. There would be no national civil rights, women’s rights, or environmental legislation if it were not for such local groundwork.

The campaign finance reform and democracy movement desperately needs an infusion of energy and enthusiasm. Advocates of reform have not been well-served by the “belt-way” mentality. There are far too many lobbyists and lawyers tinkering with the details of reform legislation, and not nearly enough student and community activists holding politicians’ feet to the fire.  Success will ultimately depend on whether these two wings of activism – students and local communities – join together. United States global and domestic policy will remain a private preserve of the rich and corporate interests so long as politics are held in thrall by the wealthy. Those who advocate change in America — and the world–cannot win until our elections are publicly financed.

The author of this article, Jay Mandle, is co-founder of Democracy Matters and the W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics at Colgate University.