A Proposal for Reforming Campaign Finance
A Node Your Homework Production
In the eyes of the American public, the once-noble quest for elected office has become an exercise in the wholesale application of the almighty dollar. The mechanics of the modern political campaign are such that extravagant amounts of capital are required to make even a dent in the popular consciousness. The bar for entry into the political arena has been raised to the point where, at the very least, millions upon millions of dollars are required in order to make your voice heard. This situation, where candidates are forced into a competition of promises and pledges for special interest money, has led to a widespread and dangerous distrust of the run for office in particular and the elected government in general. Beyond the distrust and cynicism of the voting public, though, there is a more serious issue: the pressing need for capital reduces the American democracy to what is essentially a single party system. The remedy for these problems is two-fold: the removal of direct, private donations to candidates, and the reduction of the spiraling cost to maintain and operate a political campaign.
In the early 1970s, Congress made headway on the issue of campaign finance reform, enacting legislation to sharply limit direct donations to candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, amended throughout the decade, places strict limits on the amounts of money that can be given to a candidate by individuals, political parties, and political action committees (PAC). However, these limits only apply to funds transfered to a candidate's control; they in no way limit spending on the candidate's behalf by outside groups. Contributions made through this loophole, known as "soft money", today make up the bulk of electoral spending. PACs spend billions of dollars in support of their candidates, all of which is perfectly legal, since the money never comes under the control of its benefactor, the candidate.
The staggeringly high cost of running a modern campaign makes it very difficult for third party candidates to imprint their message on the electorate. The capital required is no obstacle for the two primary parties, who have nearly limitless pools of cash in their PACs. In an across the board contrast, however, third party candidates in the 2002 mid-term elections raised only single-digit percentages of what the Democrats and Republicans raised, according to the Federal Election Commission. This imbalance reduces the election to a two-party contest, despite the presence of other groups; third parties are simply unable to afford media spots to publicize so much as their existence, much less their viewpoints. This, coupled with the increasingly homogeneous nature of the Democratic and Republican parties, makes for an effectively single party race. A system where voters have such a limited selection of options is not a democracy; forcing a choice between a single option is the same as having no options at all.
In order to save the democratic element in the electoral system and limit the effects of special interest groups, private contributions of all kind must be eliminated from the picture. Their presence insures a lop-sided race, with the wealthier candidate almost guaranteed to come out ahead. It is essential above all that public contributions replace private donations as the funding method for the electoral competition. The sole funding for all campaigns should come from the government. Funding pools would be created for each office being sought, and the money there would be divided evenly among qualifying candidates. To qualify for public funding, a candidate would have to submit a petition signed by a set percentage of the population they want to represent. These funding pools would be fed by light income taxes imposed on the area the office is over. This would create a level playing field for all candidates, forcing them to compete without the unfair advantage huge monetary reserves affords.
Two advantages would come from this reform. First, the unhealthy influence of special interests would be eliminated. In the current system, elected officials are primarily the servants of their pay masters, not the public; the welfare and wishes of the general voting population are sacrificed for the benefit of a handful of companies and individuals. Second, more candidates would be able to enter the race. Currently, many third party candidates have considerable grassroots support, but no wealthy backers to purchase publicity and to make their message heard. This reform would increase the visibility of smaller candidates, placing them on the same playing field as the Democratic and Republican competitors.
Simply equalizing the amount of money each candidate possesses would not be enough to force a more honest race; the cost of campaigning itself must be brought down. In the 2002 New York City mayoral election, candidate Michael Bloomberg spent more than $70 million, most of which was on advertisements, both on television and in print media. Media publishers are currently taking advantage of the huge sums of money at the disposal of most candidates by charging exorbitant rates for political ad space. These outlets must be forced to reduce the rates they charge to public office candidates; they do, after all, serve the public. The rate charged, though, must be equal for all candidates; the publisher may not favor a particular party or candidate with a discounted rate.
Many civil liberties groups balk at this proposal because of what they see as two First Amendment violations inherent in it. The first infringement they see is censorship. By not allowing individuals to contribute to candidates, to speak symbolically with their donations, the government would be censoring those who wish to give money to their choice of candidate. The Supreme Court, however, disagrees. On several occasions, most notably Buckley v. Valeo and Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, the bench has stated that money is property, not speech. The court also ruled that the government would only be guilty of censorship if they prohibited the candidates from spending their money in certain ways; if the government could not limit the giving of money, then all bribery and antigratuity laws would be voided as well.
The second First Amendment issue raised relates to the public funding of candidates. They see the splitting of tax dollars pooled from all voters to be the equivalent of forcing people to support candidates and opinions they may not agree with. This argument falls flat, however, in light of an existing, precedent-setting practice, the Franking Privilege. The Franking Privilege is a practice by which all members of Congress may send mail to whomever they choose, supported entirely by tax dollars. This law, over 200 years old, examined and approved by the Supreme Court, performs the exact same operation that the civil liberties groups are objecting to; persons, that the tax payer might not support, may send mail containing opinions, that the tax payer might object to, all of which that same tax payer is happily funding, with no objections from those civil liberties watchdogs.
The reduction of the United States electoral system to a nearly single-party exercise in monetary application has worked only to the detriment of the American public. Third parties, the last bastion of independent thought on most issues, have been excluded from the process by the massive amounts of fundraising that is necessary to run for office in today's world. Special interests have used their money to buy their way into Congress and other offices, turning the legislature into a servant of business and avarice. These conditions must be reversed. The solution is the elimination of private funding of election campaigns and the introduction of public dollars into the system. Only with these changes in place can America begin its collective journey back to a truly democratic state.