About a week ago, Washington Monthly published a reform plan from Paul Begala and James Carville that goes much further than anything leaders from either party seem willing to put on the table. The Begala/Carville plan, called “Not One Dime,” would effectively ban lawmakers from accepting anything of value from anyone; ban raising money altogether; and include an odd system of public financing for incumbents. Fainthearted this is not.
But it’s also not the kind of sweeping proposal we’ll see from actual members of Congress, right? Well, as it turns out, there are a growing number of House Democrats who are taking the idea of public financing seriously. An item in subscription-only Roll Call this week noted that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) is leading the way with a surprisingly bold approach.
Obey dismisses the various initiatives aimed at lobbying reform — Obey says it’s irrelevant which side has “the tighter limits on trips, or who’s got the tighter limits on meals” — when campaign funding is the real story. And as far as Obey is concerned, “In general elections, there should not be a dime of private money.”
To that end, Obey is joining with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to propose full public financing of all House elections. They announced Wednesday that they will introduce the plan, which would bar all candidates from fundraising and self-financing in their campaigns, when the House reconvenes next week.
“Instead of dialing for dollars, Members could actually be in their committees, learning what their bills would actually do,” Obey said. “You could actually have a Congress that’s 50-50 between politics and legislating. Right now it’s 90 percent politics and 10 percent legislating.”
The idea of public financing has routinely been rejected as “welfare for politicians” by Republicans, but the current scandals may, just may, offer an opening to discuss the idea in earnest.
The details of the plan are pretty sweeping.
Under the Obey-Frank plan, citizens would voluntarily contribute to the “Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund” through a “check-up” — as opposed to the current check-off that helps fund the presidential public financing system — on their federal tax return. The Federal Election Commission would then allocate funds to each of the 435 Congressional districts, based on median family income. The wealthiest districts would be allocated about $1.5 million, and the poorest about $750,000. Within each district, the money would then be distributed to general election candidates in direct relation to each party’s showing in the previous two elections; if the Democrats have averaged 60 percent, their candidate would get 60 percent of the money.
The program would be mandatory for all candidates, and spending by any outside groups would be barred. Candidates would also be prohibited from opting out and dipping into their own wallets to finance their races. State and national parties could only contribute money, goods and services equal to 5 percent of their candidate’s expenditure cap.
The rules would apply to general elections only, and not primaries.
Far from protecting incumbents, a criticism leveled at some of his past public financing efforts, Obey notes that the plan would increase the bankrolls of challengers in more than 80 percent of districts. He said it’s more than enough money for candidates to run credible campaigns, but Members who equate a strong campaign with television saturation might not agree.
For instance, the 5th and 13th districts in New Jersey both sit in the New York media market, where airtime is pricier than anywhere else in the country. The wealthy, suburban 5th (median income: $72,781) would likely be eligible for the full $1.5 million. Once divvied up, that could be enough for both candidates to finance modest television campaigns. But that might not be the case in the gritty 13th (median income: $37,129). By the same token, the cash allocated to Nebraska’s impoverished 3rd district, home of the poorest county in America, might be enough to flood the comparatively cheap airwaves there.
The plan isn’t perfect — commenters are welcome to point out flaws — and a GOP majority would never even consider a hearing on this kind of electoral overhaul. But, as Obey noted, he and Frank want to “expand the discussion.”
It strikes me as a good place to start.