Public Funding of Congressional Campaigns

Congressman David Obey’s public funding of congressional campaigns bill is HR 4694. Nominees of parties that had averaged 25% of the vote for US House in that district (over the last two elections) would get full public funding. Also, independent candidates who had averaged 25% would also get full public funding. All others would be required to submit petitions signed by 10% of the last vote cast, for partial funding; and 20% petitions for full funding. Candidates not qualifying for partial funding would be barred from spending any privately raised money. The co-sponsors are these 7 Democrats: Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Barney Frank and James McGovern of Massachusetts, Henry Waxman and Bob Filner of California, Steve Israel of New York, and Tim Ryan of Ohio.


Comments

Public Funding of Congressional Campaigns — 44 Comments

  1. What happens if a representatve runs unopposed for two cycles? Does that party then have a monopoly on that seat? Do the candidates get money if they have no ballot opponent?

  2. It’s not just a problem if the winning candidate runs unopposed. In my Congressional district, the Republican candidates have averaged about 15% of the vote in the last two elections, so the next Republican candidate would need a 10% petition to get any money at all, and a 20% petition for full funding.

    I don’t think this bill will get too far in Congress.

  3. I can’t imagine that the Supreme Court would allow a badn on the spending of private funds. The bill is bad in other ways, but this one wouldn’t stand.

  4. So, in Wisconsin, a candidate for Congress would have to collect 1,000 signatures just to get on the ballot, and then collect *another* batch of signatures to qualify for funding? What a farce!

    People should know that, in 2004, Rep. Obey faced a challenger from the left for the first time in his political career in the person of Mike Miles, who ran as a Green. Obey refused to debate Miles, saying that he (Miles) was not a “legitimate” candidate. Miles got one of the highest vote totals of any third party candidate that year; he’s already announced that he’s running again.

  5. I would like to propose a call-in/write-in campaign to address the unfairness of the bill. Does anyone have a suggestion on an alternative structuring or wording of it that we can send in to these sponsors?

  6. Really, requiring an independent or smaller party candidate to qualify based on the votes garnered in previous elections where they were at a disadvantage due to funding is a bit absurd.

  7. I think that if I were ever to become a candidate and my opponent stated that I was not a legitimate candidate, I would seriously consider returning the favor without using the euphemism, illegitimate.

    For life and liberty,
    David Macko

  8. I just finished reading (and re-reading) the bill, and I get something different from it. While it still has major problems, the way I read it minor party or independent candidates that have run before do get money even without petitioning. They get allocated money in proportion to the percentage of the vote they received as compared to the total vote. Mike Miles for instance received 10% of the vote last time, and so would get 10% of the maximum funding determined for that district (it varies by district).

    He would only have to petition to get more funds (up to the matching the highest funded candidate).

    -Roger

  9. Sec 501 & 502 of HR 4694:

    A candidate in a House of Representatives general election may not make expenditures other than as provided in this title.

    The only sources of amounts for expenditures by candidates in House of Representatives general elections shall be–

    `(1) the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund under section 506; and

    `(2) additional amounts from State and national party committees under section 507.
    —-

    As I read it, campaign funds for congressional races must come from one of two sources. This might not be so bad except the proportion of funding is based on past elections. I think this is a very bad bill because for almost anyone outside the 2 major parties, it creates a virtual mountain to climb, in addition to the current obsticles, before the candidate will be on equal funding.

    In 2004, after John Kerry either directly or indirectly excluded Ralph Nadar from the election process, I decided there was no way I could vote for him.

    I am ready to scrap the whole representative democracy process, if you can call it that, and try something new.

  10. Roger, you’re correct that this bill does not totally eliminate third parties from public funding if they have a track record. But it does represent a preemptive strike against any new parties that might develop.

    As for the Mike Miles example, I think you’re only partly right. While Miles would be entitled to a percent of the pot this time around, I’m not sure it would be 10%. The bill looks back to the last *two* House elections to determine the percentage available to the candidate of any given party. Since the Greens didn’t run a candidate in ’02, I believe Mike’s percentage would be significantly less than 10, since his vote total from ’04 would be compared with the total vote for all candidates in both ’02 and ’04.

    That’s how I read it anyway. This is all pretty academic, of course, since this bill is going nowhere. But that’s not to say it’s not an important discussion to have, if only to divine Obey & Co.’s real motives here.

    Jeff Peterson
    Wisconsin’s 7th CD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.