Bi-partisan support for public financing?

February 22, 2006

A couple of weeks ago, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), announced their support for a system of public financing of federal elections. It seemed like the kind of proposal that would move the conversation in a helpful and productive way, but would never generate any support on the other side of the aisle.

Then again, maybe the assumption was wrong.

Sen. George Voinovich, Ethics Committee chairman and a sometime gadfly to Republican leadership, is warming to Democratic-backed proposals for public financing of federal elections.

Voinovich (R-Ohio) told The Hill that he has met with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) to discuss collaboration on the public-financing pitch Durbin is crafting with Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), the Rules Committee’s ranking Democrat. Snagging the endorsement of Voinovich, who last year bucked his party by opposing the confirmation of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and has so far taken a supporting role in the GOP’s push for lobbying reform, could give the public-financing concept considerable momentum.

“Maybe it is the answer,” Voinovich said. “Too much of our time is spent raising money, time spent campaigning, time buying TV ads. When everyone’s out there trying to raise money, dialing for dollars … until we deal with this issue you’re going to continue to have problems.”

I know; I couldn’t believe it either.

To be sure, I’m not counting on a wave of support from the GOP side of the aisle right now. Getting a Republican Congress and Republican White House to embrace a Dem proposal on public financing is wildly far-fetched. But it’s about expanding the discussion beyond just lobbying-reform measures that tweak the edges.

Some of the bolder members of the Dem caucus see an opportunity in light of the Abramoff (and Cunningham, and DeLay) scandals to fundamentally improve how the system works. The fact that Voinovich is open to the idea of public financing is very encouraging and may prompt some of his colleagues to give the Durbin/Dodd proposal a second look.

How about it, Linc Chafee? Snowe? Collins?

Having worked on some economic development projects with Voinovich and his office when he was Governor of Ohio, I must say that when in Ohio state office and as a city official he was a pretty straight up kind of guy, willing to compromise and in general wanting to do the right thing. Needless to say that I became very disappointed with him once he became a senator, and pretty much voted lockstep with the deranged part of his party (yes, I guess money talks and is all important) although he has had a couple noted exceptions (Bolton, second round of tax cuts). So this does not really surprise me–maybe he realizes that there is a lot to be gained personally for taking a stand on some things, and maybe he can regain at least a little of his past reputation.

  • “Getting a Republican Congress and Republican White House to embrace a Dem proposal…”

    Ummmm, CB, remember the whole Department of Homeland Security thing? That was entirely a Democratic enterprise until the Republicans just took it over (then painted the Democrats as being against it)… I don’t doubt their ability to pull it off again…

  • Are there currently any democratic countries where campaigns are publicly financed? I tried an internet search but didn’t find what I was looking for…

  • The biggest cost of campaigning involves buying advertising on the publically owned airwaves (at least, that’s the functioning theory and reason why naughty words are not allowed on broadcast radio or TV).

    If Congress would simply DEMAND access to those airwaves for themselves and their legitimate opponents, costs would fall by quite a bit.

    But so would the value of the local radio stations and TV stations and in this country, you can’t destroy people’s wealth…

    … except through global warming, of course.

  • Addison, one thing I can tell you is that the vast majority of other democratic countries, particularly in Europe, don’t spend (I don’t think) a tenth of what “we” do on elections. While in the UK for a few of their elections, there are hardly any television commercials, and most of the specific races are not nasty, even in hotly contested ones.

  • It’s the #1 goal of every elected official to get reelected. That’s bipartisan. You can bet this proposal will aid incumbancy, which in turn diminishes accountability. You think people will suddenly decide to do the right thing once they are less accountable?

  • Collins’ sole advantage over her competition is her ability to raise money, else she’d lose to a potted plant. She would be cutting her own throat.

    The reputation the Queens of Maine have for ‘moderation’ is nearly as unwarranted as McCain’s

  • Here is my plan. Every candidate can raise as much money as they wish, from whomever they wish. All the money goes to a single account, where once a week, it get divided EQUALLY amongst ALL registered candidates running for that given post. A Repug raises a million, great, he has to share it with Greens and Dems and whomever else equally, and vice-versa. Yes it’s a dream, but one never knows…..

  • al

    Not bad. Might be easier to sell if the person who raised the $$ gets to keep half, and the other half goes into the “pool.”

  • Lance –

    Even if the assumption is correct that – today – the big campaign expense is broadcast media buys making the airwaves free for candidates wont solve the problem. If nothing is done about the fundraising and fundgiving, a candidate will still do everything possible to bring in the $10 mil, they just wont have to spend any on newly-free broadcast. It then becomes $10 mil of direct mail, or billboards, or newspaper ads, or travel. They are highly unlikely to say “well, guess I don’t need so much money; I’ll only raise $2 mil this time.”

    Bubba, you post (#1) makes me wonder if Senator V misses the ability to be that person he was back in a more local office and sees public financing as a way to get some of his freedom back, make the job more enjoyable. Probably giving him way too much credit, but it seems plausible. In their hearts, I would think all but the most heinous on the Hill would have to feel that way, at least a little.

  • Z–I probably am giving him too much credit. It is a shame, though, and disappointing, that he has become a weak kneed Catholic school girl (heck, sorry, I know Catholic School girls much tougher than him) in his current position.

  • Bubba’s insight on the big V makes sense—once he got out of local/state politics, he was suddenly more reliant on the money machine to support him. He may see this as a way to extricate himself from that dependence (which is the entire point, right?).

    If you faced hundreds of votes as a national legislator, would you risk everything on every vote? That’s what a tightly-run party requires: you step out of line on ANY vote, and your reelection is in jeopardy.

  • The very sad thing about Voinovich is that, if I remember correctly, he won every county in Ohio last election. EVERY one. If he cannot use that sort of across the board support to tell the powers in his party to piss off, and start to do what is right (you know, nation before party), then he may be a bigger coward than I ever thought he could be. He is, in a word, disappointing.

  • 527s will still raise money and buy up airtime to smear their opponents. I see nothing in public financing proposals that would eliminate the power and influence of 527s and PACs. Candidates could plausibly run campaigns out of their pocket, practically eliminating the need for funds themselves, if the heavy lifting were done by 527s.

  • From the article linked to TheHill: The House Democratic plan would prohibit all independent expenditures except those of state and local parties, according to an aide to Frank.

    That would make it illegal for me to go print up flyers out of my own pocket to distribute in my neighborhood in support of the congressional candidate of my choice. I don’t like that restriction.

  • #11.

    Zeitgeist

    One of the complaints of these Senators is that they spend half their time raising funds. If they can win with $2 MIL versus $10 MIL, they can spend a fifth of their time raising it, stay in state to do it, and not be so beholden to nasty lobbyists and special interests.

    All of which is a load of C….

    These people need to just apply the rules of the Senate and House and stop allowing last minute earmarks (pork), amendment (special interest provisions) and extended votes (arm twisting). If the leadership would follow the rules they have now, they would not be corrupt.

    It’s the congressmen who are corrupt, not the system nor the lobbyists.

    • Comments are closed.