PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING: The Solution to a Problem that No Longer Exists
The nation's newspaper editorial boards are currently up in arms over Obama's decision to forgo public financing in the general election campaign. The Baltimore Sun describes the decision as "a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics." The tone of this Washington Post editorial is even more scathing.
What's conspicuously missing from all of these editorials, however, is any real discussion of why Obama and the editorial boards themselves have previously supported the concept of public financing. Obviously there's nothing inherently good about the federal government forking over hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for often misleading and hackish 30 second television spots. To the contrary, public financing is clearly intended to be a means to an end. The idea is that it's better to have the taxpayers pay this money directly than to have politicians raise the money from special interests, to whom they'd then be beholden.
And until very recently, that made a lot of sense. Under the old fundraising model, politicians raised most of their money from large donors, and it is reasonable to assume that the interests and priorities of people who can afford to give thousands of dollars to political campaigns may not be quite the same as those of average Americans. Indeed, that's why you still see politicians doing things like promising to repeal the estate tax, a move that makes no policy sense at all and would only benefit the ultra-wealthy. It's little more than an appeal for donations from a group of people with a lot of money.
But the major revelation of the Obama campaign, one that I think even surprised the candidate himself, is just how much money can be raised from small donors, i.e., average American voters. Obama has shattered all previous records for fund-raising, and he's done so with an average contribution of only about $100.
Public financing is supposed to insulate candidates from the pernicious influence of special interests. But when a campaign is primarily funded through the small contributions of millions of voters, there really is no special interest concern. The problem, after all, is not the money itself, but where the money comes from. And when it's coming from a broad cross-section of the voters themselves, it's difficult to see what there is to be concerned about.
What the editorial boards are doing is failing to re-examine the premises underlying their support for public financing. They're all wringing their hands over the "precedent" that Obama is setting by rejecting public financing. But what exactly is that precedent? Future politicians who attempt to follow Obama's lead will run campaigns geared around appealing to large numbers of small donors, i.e., average American voters. Is that really something we should be concerned about?
As someone who used to be a big supporter of public financing, I can tell you that the fund-raising success of the Dean campaign and now the Obama campaign have changed my views on the subject. Their success has convinced me that--in the internet age--politicians who appeal to large numbers of small donors will consistently be able to out-raise those who appeal only to narrow special interests. And if that's the case, why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for elections? What exactly does that accomplish?
If I were in charge of campaign finance reform, I would do away with public financing and lower the contribution limit (currently $2300) by a thousand dollars, something that would encourage even more small-donor fund-raising. Politicians should be forced to raise their own money, but they should be incentivized to do so from as many people as possible. (I'd also include provisions requiring full disclosure of all bundlers, something Obama has championed.)
Sometimes, when we're lucky, the solution to a seemingly intractable problem--in this case, the role of special interests in funding campaigns--presents itself organically. And when that happens, those of us who have been pushing for other, more artificial solutions need to take a step back and realize that the policies we've been fighting for may no longer be necessary. It would be nice if the nation's editorial boards took a collective breath and spent a little time re-examining the premises underlying their positions on this issue.
And if they're really looking for a reason to criticize Obama, perhaps they should focus a little more on his FISA capitulation and a little less on his decision to forgo public financing.
What's conspicuously missing from all of these editorials, however, is any real discussion of why Obama and the editorial boards themselves have previously supported the concept of public financing. Obviously there's nothing inherently good about the federal government forking over hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for often misleading and hackish 30 second television spots. To the contrary, public financing is clearly intended to be a means to an end. The idea is that it's better to have the taxpayers pay this money directly than to have politicians raise the money from special interests, to whom they'd then be beholden.
And until very recently, that made a lot of sense. Under the old fundraising model, politicians raised most of their money from large donors, and it is reasonable to assume that the interests and priorities of people who can afford to give thousands of dollars to political campaigns may not be quite the same as those of average Americans. Indeed, that's why you still see politicians doing things like promising to repeal the estate tax, a move that makes no policy sense at all and would only benefit the ultra-wealthy. It's little more than an appeal for donations from a group of people with a lot of money.
But the major revelation of the Obama campaign, one that I think even surprised the candidate himself, is just how much money can be raised from small donors, i.e., average American voters. Obama has shattered all previous records for fund-raising, and he's done so with an average contribution of only about $100.
Public financing is supposed to insulate candidates from the pernicious influence of special interests. But when a campaign is primarily funded through the small contributions of millions of voters, there really is no special interest concern. The problem, after all, is not the money itself, but where the money comes from. And when it's coming from a broad cross-section of the voters themselves, it's difficult to see what there is to be concerned about.
What the editorial boards are doing is failing to re-examine the premises underlying their support for public financing. They're all wringing their hands over the "precedent" that Obama is setting by rejecting public financing. But what exactly is that precedent? Future politicians who attempt to follow Obama's lead will run campaigns geared around appealing to large numbers of small donors, i.e., average American voters. Is that really something we should be concerned about?
As someone who used to be a big supporter of public financing, I can tell you that the fund-raising success of the Dean campaign and now the Obama campaign have changed my views on the subject. Their success has convinced me that--in the internet age--politicians who appeal to large numbers of small donors will consistently be able to out-raise those who appeal only to narrow special interests. And if that's the case, why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for elections? What exactly does that accomplish?
If I were in charge of campaign finance reform, I would do away with public financing and lower the contribution limit (currently $2300) by a thousand dollars, something that would encourage even more small-donor fund-raising. Politicians should be forced to raise their own money, but they should be incentivized to do so from as many people as possible. (I'd also include provisions requiring full disclosure of all bundlers, something Obama has championed.)
Sometimes, when we're lucky, the solution to a seemingly intractable problem--in this case, the role of special interests in funding campaigns--presents itself organically. And when that happens, those of us who have been pushing for other, more artificial solutions need to take a step back and realize that the policies we've been fighting for may no longer be necessary. It would be nice if the nation's editorial boards took a collective breath and spent a little time re-examining the premises underlying their positions on this issue.
And if they're really looking for a reason to criticize Obama, perhaps they should focus a little more on his FISA capitulation and a little less on his decision to forgo public financing.
posted by A.L. at 9:39 PM
13 Comments:
Obama said today (saturday, whatever) that he will "try" to get rid of telecom immunity from the FISA bill.
a small step, but an encouraging one.
Actually kinda wondering when you, AL, are going to "focus a little more on his FISA capitulation." Your silence after his eventual statement is "increasingly deafening." I, for one, would be very interested to read your take on his position.
There's only one problem with the idea that Obama's fundraising model makes public financing obsolete: How can one be sure that his model won't remain an anomaly, a phenomenon compatible only with a certain type of candidacy, rather than a new and universally applicable technique?
Even if his model is more than an outright anomaly--say it turns out to be merely a minority model-- you would still have a majority of elected officials corrupted in myriad ways by the quest for money.
Two key facts proliferating the corruption of money in elections are 1) the sheer $ amounts and 2) the continued exponential growth of those amounts. As long as special interests have huge sums of money that they CAN invest in the political process, they WILL. And their money will corrupt the result.
One of the complaints we've heard over the years is the (alleged) distaste of politicians who have to constantly spend time rasing money (on the phone, making speeches, appearances with industry groups, etc). By some accounts it consumed all their spare time and even impacted their ability to fully function as a legislator or executive.
Will a small-donor system, which is basically an Internet phenomenon, obviate that sort of thing? Sure, the politician has to expend some effort, but it'd be mostly updating policy positions, statements of the day, and pure vote-for-me PR, all through low-hassle interactions with the IT staff.
AL,
Nope, not buying that. And to add on to quiddity's point above, office holders are spending "spare time" raising funds. They are constantly, day in-day out--spending a large percentage of their office time raising funds. This is time they could be reading the bills they vote on, or talking with constituents.
I'd add that a large portion of the public can't afford to send contributions to candidates. What of them?
No. Your idea will not solve the problem. So long as money equals free speech, the class-based inequities will continue, and expand.
I'll give you this though--media treatment of this very fundamental issue is shallow, and laughable.
the above should have read:
"office holders are NOT JUST spending "spare time" raising funds."
preview are my friend,
AL- I am also not buying it, although for a different reason. The point here is that Obama broke his word and did so in order to achieve a strategic advantage in the election. The word “advantage” should be noted. Obama did not need to do this in order to be on a level playing field with McCain. He did it so that he could spend 3 or 4 times as much as McCain can. That’s it, pure and simple.
Now with regard to how the campaign finance system should be structured in the future, I am certainly open to your suggestion that we get rid of public financing, and require presidential candidates (like all other candidates) to raise money entirely from voluntary donations. I would note, however, that this is not Obama’s position. Or more precisely, it is not the position that Obama is claiming to have at this particular point in time.
MLS,
It is not so nearly a cut-and-dried fact that Obama "broke his word". He originally pledged to try and work with whoever won the GOP nomination to come to an agreement about financing, which, he now says, didn't happen, because McCain wouldn't agree to curb the 527 organizations. Was there a good-faith effort? You may believe what you wish, but don't peddle your faith-based opinions as fact, please.
Sure, Obama's organization has a lot more money. But the DNC is nearly broke, while the RNC has a lot of money they can and are spending to support McCain. On the other hand, Obama will undoubtedly support the DNC.
The only Democratic 527 to put out a presidential campaign ad, MovOn.org, has pulled its ad at the request of Obama, while, if McCain has even made a sincere request of the GOP 527's, it has been ignored.
It is pointless to try and keep money from making a difference in American life, since so many Americans are conditioned to value everything in terms of the dollar.
In my opinion, the only fix necessary is to make the source of all donations over a certain very low figure public without delay, whether to 527 organizations or any other organization involved in political advocacy. Repeal McCain-Feingold and let the money flow, as long as information also is forthcoming, and let the voters decide how to evaluate the result.
seems to me that the other element that media discussion of this issue - and this here discussion of this issue - fails to address is "what makes being a successful politician so expensive anyway?" Obama's rise definitely represents a toppling of old order - at least in terms of fundraising - but he still appears to be spending his money the same old way. On TV ads. Since he's no fool, I have to assume that that's still a wise decision. But you're telling me that eight years from now, most Americans are still going to be basing their choice for candidate on what they see IN A COMMERCIAL ON TV? I don't think so.
In discussing campaign finance reform, not only do we need to reexamine the premises of campaign fundraising, we need to reexamine the premises of campaign expenditure. I have no idea what the world is going to be like eight years from now, but if you told me that the next politician-phenom rises on the strength of figuring out how to use FREE MEDIA, I wouldn't be suprised. Getting your word out in this day and age just shouldn't be that expensive.
Moreoever, what will be interesting is watching how the "corporate" element continues to fight/oppose/undermine "free media" for that very reason - because it obviously threatens their political power - i.e. financial interest.
C2H50H- if you want to believe that Obama kept his promise to “aggressively pursue” an agreement to use public financing with whoever won the Republican nomination, you are free to do so. If you want to believe that he refusing to accept public financing because McCain won’t “curb” the 527s (something that would be practically impossible and likely illegal), go ahead. I will stick with my view, which I think is shared by the vast majority of objective observers.
MLS,
What you believe is up to you. If you think your view is shared by the vast majority of "objective observers," I hope that comforts you, although, speaking for myself, I haven't seen any of them there "objective observers" lately.
I merely pointed out that your belief is not based on unequivocal fact. An unwelcome assertion, and hardly the act of a kindly soul, I admit, but there it is.
As for me, I'm just waiting to see how this FISA mess plays out -- and meanwhile donating to ActBlue and registering my opinions with my congressional delegation.
"vast majority of objective observors"...
yes, and what does the "plurality of unicorns" believe?
专业的翻译公司，译佰深圳翻译公司，广州翻译公司，上海翻译公司国内同声翻译（同声传译）领域领头军！同声传译(同传)是国际会议通常使用的翻译方式， 翻译人员进入隔音间里，通过耳机接听发言人的声音再将其翻译给听众。这种形式的翻译方式需要较为复杂的设备以及非常专业的翻译人员，但能节省大量的时间。译佰翻译公司能提供同传英语翻译 ，日语翻译，法语翻译德语翻译，俄语翻译，韩语翻译等数种同传语言，培养一批商务口译人员，多年以来，译佰同声翻译在同声传译(同传)领域积累了丰富的业务经验，能提供从专业同声翻译、译员培训到同传设备安装租售业务等一整套国际会议同传服务。
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home