In the last installment, I talked about some reforms that have already been put into use by some states, particularly the Clean Elections Act in Arizona. But now we are going to talk about some ideas that have been proposed but not yet enacted including both finance reform and election reform. The idea is that finance reform may not be the only or even the best way to create the kind of changes we need to offer voters more choice and keep lobbyists out of the process.
Public Funding
Public funding has been one of the most popular ideas for campaign reform for many years and is quite different than most of the “clean election laws” we have seen around the country. One idea in particular was articulated by a couple of Yale Law School professors, Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers, in their book Voting With Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance. The concept is based around two main principles: public dollars that all citizens are given to spend on campaigns and private donations that are given anonymously. First, everyone would be given $50 in “Patriot Dollars” which could only be used for contributing to a campaign and would be broken down into particular national elections seats, such as $25 for presidential campaigns, $15 to Senate campaigns, and $10 to House of Representatives campaigns. Voters could put the Patriot Dollars toward any candidates they wanted, but could not carry the money over toward an election in a different year, the leftover funds would simply expire after the election. The idea is that by giving EVERYONE money to contribute to campaigns, then more people would participate in the election process because they would feel like they now would “have a say” in who representated them. Candidates might widen their range of issues to a broader base if they knew that everyone was a potential donor.
The second aspect of the proposal is to allow private donations to campaigns and increase the maximum allowances, but the donations would have to be completely secret. Money would be turned into the FEC with directions on where to contribute the funds, but the actual candidates would have no idea who gave them the money. Theoretically, candidates would have no incentive to give big backers more access or favorable support on legislation because they would not know who the big backers were. However, I believe it is easy to see how ineffective this aspect could be because candidates could easily find out who is giving them what and big donors would still get the preferential treatment.
Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 & H.R. 1401)
The Fair Elections Now Act was re-introduced in 2011 in the Senate by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill), in the House by Reps John Larson (D-Conn), Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.Y.), and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). The purpose is to allow people to run for office without relying on the big donations from corporations and lobbyists and keep them focussed on constituant needs rather than constant fundraising.
To Qualify:
Candidates for the House of Representatives would have to raise contributions from 1500 people and a total of $50,000, with the largest single contribution being $100. For Senate a candidate would have to raise contributions from 2000 people plus 500 extra for each district in that state.
How Much Do They Get:
Qualified House candidates would get $900,000 to be split 40% for the primary and 60% for the general election. Qualified Senate candidates would get $1.25 million plus an extra $250,000 for each district in the state and the split for primary and general election would be the same as for the House. If candidates are up against overly funded opponents, they would be eligible for matching funds if they continue to raise small donations (less than $100) from in-state donors. For every dollar a candidate raises, there would be a match of 5 times that amount up to a total of 3 times the total allocation for the primary and then again for the general election. House candidates would also get a $100,000 media voucher and Senate candidates would get $100,000 per congressional district.
Who Pays For The Fund:
The money used to fund this bill would come from the companies who get the largest government contracts, a small percentage of the contract amount would be paid into the Fair Elections Fund.
This plan is a national election plan similar to the state plan in Arizona in many ways but different in others. One problem I can see is the funding of the plan by companies who receive government contracts because I can see the lobbying storm it would raise and it seems unlikely that enough money could be raised. According to the authors of the plan if the plan becomes popular, it could cost between $700 to $850 million per year. I can see how it promotes smaller contributions and from those living in the state where the candidate is running. It also makes the qualifications tough enough to keep out those candidates who probably would not stand a chance in the first place because it forces them to get a great deal of support in the community before they can qualify for the big funds.
So far we have seen Arizona’s Clean Elections Law, the Voting With Dollars approach, and the Fair Elections Now Act and in the next final installment we will look at my approach which does not use public funds and is extraordinarily simple.
References:
http://fairelectionsnow.org/about-bill
http://campaignmoney.org/fair-elections
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/11/opinion/la-oe-turley11-2010feb11
