Public campaign financing finds a few new friends — but remains on backburner

Call it “incremental progress.” The number of high-profile supporters for [tag]public financing[/tag] of federal political [tag]campaigns[/tag] grew a little bigger yesterday with a bi-partisan group of well-known former [tag]senators[/tag].

Just $6 per citizen is all it would take for Congress to fund publicly every federal campaign every year, contend four former U.S. senators.

Democrats [tag]Bill Bradley[/tag] of New Jersey and [tag]Bob Kerrey[/tag] of Nebraska and Republicans [tag]Alan Simpson[/tag] of Wyoming and [tag]Warren Rudman[/tag] of New Hampshire plan to launch the nonpartisan effort to pay for federal campaigns on Thursday.

“Incumbents find it eternally necessary to raise big bucks for their next election nearly every single day,” Simpson said Wednesday. “It’s not only demeaning but it took a large chunk of time that could have been devoted to doing the public’s business. The time is now to go to voluntary public funding.”

The announcement comes just a few months after Reps. [tag]David Obey[/tag] (Wis.) and [tag]Barney Frank[/tag] (Mass.) unveiled a proposal for public funding of federal campaigns, which was followed by an announcement from Senate Democratic Whip [tag]Dick Durbin[/tag] (D-Ill.) and Sen. [tag]Chris Dodd[/tag] (D-Conn.) on their support for a public financing system, which was followed by tepid-but-encouraging support for the idea from Senate Ethics Committee Chairman [tag]George Voinovich[/tag] (R-Ohio).

Indeed, House Minority Leader [tag]Nancy Pelosi[/tag] (D-Calif.) raised a few eyebrows over the weekend when she said, on Meet the Press, that she would scrap the current system altogether. “I think we have to break the link completely,” she said.

As encouraging as all of this is, Roll Call noted today that congressional Dems like the idea, but aren’t yet prepared to push it.

[D]on’t expect Democrats — who need a net gain of 15 seats to reclaim the House majority they lost a dozen years ago — to push for an idea that opponents have long derided as “welfare for politicians,” either in the campaign or if they take control of Congress.

“It’s her personal opinion,” Jennifer Crider, Pelosi’s spokeswoman, said Wednesday, downplaying the significance of the leader’s pronouncement. “It’s been her personal opinion for 20 years.”

Even Democrats who back public financing say the issue isn’t likely to come up any time soon. “I don’t think that’s going to be the Democratic position on this” during the campaign, said Rep. [tag]Henry Waxman[/tag] (Calif.). “Not all Democrats agree on that position … and there’s so much else to talk about.”

Fine. I’d like to see more progress, but at this point, it’s about expanding the discussion and establishing an idea over the long term. Public financing, at this point, is not only slowly generating more support, it’s also picking up allies on both sides of the aisle. Progress is progress.

Former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, the last of a dying breed, a respectable conservative (a true, small-government conservative).

  • There are obviously many issues that need to be worked out before public campaign financing is feasible, but I don’t see any other way to stop the buying and selling of public office. Trying to close loopholes in the current system is like playing whack-a-mole, and the system remains corruptible.

  • Just $6 per citizen …

    Why so expensive?

    6 times 290 million is over a billion bucks.

    Sorry. Call me a fiscal democrat.
    It really ought not to cost that much.

  • Does that mean that everyone who wants to run for Congress gets public funding? Or will this system create a new barrier to entry for third parties?

  • 6 times 290 million is over a billion bucks

    I can’t remember the exact figure but it seems like Kerry and Bush spent almost a billion dollars between them during the 2004 campaign. If we could cover all federal elections at $6 dollars a pop that would be a bargain in my book.

    What really excites me about this is how it could level the playing field for candidates and break the stranglehold of the moneyed class on politics.

  • One more thing. If everyone contributed to the system and we could see candidates that were more representative of the population as a whole, instead of the country club good-ole-boys, maybe people would start feeling like they had a vested interest in the system and this would increase the participation rate.

  • The question is, would it work? I don’t think so. Corporate America owns the government now, and it’s not going to let go. It either won’t happen, or if it does, it won’t put the power in the hands of the people. It will stay right where it is.

  • I think it might be worth pointing out that Portland already has this system, and the current election is being run on it. Any candidate who can collect 5000 donations of $5 for a city council position becomes eligible for public financing. The local business alliance is naturally opposed to it and attempted to get a referendum on the ballot (and failed, but will undoubtedly try in every election cycle henceforth,) and we already had one candidate who has been rife with corruption – funny story about her, she first made headlines by saying the system was a bad idea, apparantly she decided to go out and prove it.

    But it’s a fantastic idea. It pulls candidates away from big-moneyed interests, puts a stop to “favors”, and means candidates can instead focus on serving the people they are supposed to represent.

    I’m suprised that there are any Republicans at all in support of this, that is truly shocking and is a good sign from Simpson and Rudman. It means that McCain isn’t the only Republican who doesn’t believe that money = speech.

    However, I doubt this will pass on the national scale anytime soon. The Congress is almost always slow on the uptake with stuff like this, and requires decades of experimentation on the state and local level before it passes. Have similar public financing measures been tried in other communities? How have those efforts done?

  • If you live in California, we could have full public financing right now, with Clean Money. It’s the same system that has been successful in Maine and Arizona.

    If you live in California, phone, write, email, and fax your State Senators now, demanding they pass this thing!

    AB 583 will provide full public financing for statewide campaigns. It’s going to be in the state Senate for a vote soon. More at http://www.caclean.org

  • Progress is indeed progress! Clean Money is the next step in an American continuoum of progress.

    In days past, women couldn’t vote, the poor couldn’t vote, blacks couldn’t vote, non-landowners couldn’t vote. “Corruption” has many forms.

    As a whole, over the years we’ve become better off now than when the America was formed… More comfortable, less hungry. But new problems will continue to arise that could take that all away.

    The pursuit of democracy is the pursuit to eliminate corruption: To keep the government from having ultimate power, sapping all citizens of the fairness and objective rationality we build our lives on (streets, roads, schools, courts, patents, dams, water systems, voting rights, laws…).

    Our progress and our constitutional amendments protecting our rights over these 200 years is a history we can stand up for, to continue to push for what we is right and good and fair.

    Public Funding of Campaigns seems obvious from this perspective because they are campaigns of, by, and for the people of America. You simply cannot say the same for the current system of private, and wealth funding and the necessary media domination to win office.

    So, the question of Voluntary Public Funding of Campaigns for this amazing country is a question of when, and how, not why.

    The “how” is answered in Arizona, Maine, Connecticut, Portland, Albuquerque. Many other cities and states across the country are moving toward it too. Including California http://www.CAclean.org.

    The “when” is truly NOW. Lest we let special interests, multinationals, non constituencies, and wealth continue to dominate and restrict our rights to the democracy we cherish.

    Without Publicly Funded Campaigns, we are back to the Boston Tea Party: Taxation without Representation.

    It’s time to get our representatives back now while we still can.

  • Comments are closed.