Both houses of Congress have bills to provide for public funding of candidates for Congress. They are S752 and HR 1826. The Senate bill has 5 co-sponsors and the House bill has 126 co-sponsors.
Many Democrats in Congress have expressed dismay at the U.S. Supreme Court’s campaign finance opinion, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, handed down January 21. That decision lets corporations and unions run their own advertising, either supporting or criticizing candidates for federal office. Much commentary has predicted that the ruling will cause renewed interest in public funding of campaigns. However, so far, no new co-sponsors have signed up to either of the public funding bills since the decision came down. It is possible that in the next few weeks and months, though, there will be new support for the bills.
The EVIL party hacks have some *dismay* since the corps./ unions may spend a zillion dollars in the marginal gerrymander districts against the party hack incumbents.
P.R. and A.V. NOW — before it is too late.
Renewed interest in public financing, yes. But a better chance of passage? I doubt it. The main roadblock is not explicit in Citizens United itself. It is in the parallel line of cases building on Davis v. FEC, as Richard recently reported here. Unless publicly-funded candidates can be given the resources to match the expenditures of wealthy opponents who opt out of public funding, many office holders who would otherwise vote for reform will believe such votes are suicidal.
Jesse Ventura got elected Governor of Minnesota with the help of public funding. He only had one-tenth the money of either of his major party opponents, but he still won. Candidates with a winning message don’t necessarily need to outspend every opponent; they just need enough money to get their own message out.
In 2008, candidate Obama declined to accept public financing. McCain chose to participate in the government program. Obama raked in millions from small individual contributions. VP nominee Sarah Palin reinvigorated the grassroots right. Regardless of the enthusiasm, the GOP ticket couldn’t raise a dime from Palin sensation.
Here’s Karl Rove in the December 4, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “No presidential candidate will ever take public financing in the general election again and risk being outspent as badly as Mr. McCain was this year,”
It goes to show how American democracy is adapting to the benefits of the information revolution. Small individual contributions are as easy and instant as a click of a mouse. Like minded people can come together and support candidates for office.
@3: This, to me, is evidence supporting my view that HR 1826 does contain some bias in favor of the longer-established parties, simply because the fundraising threshold it would set for qualifying for public financing is ten times the threshold to meet the FEC Act’s current definition of “candidate”. If there is not going to be a specific match per dollar raised, then at the very least I would urge a proportional share of the “base amount” be made available as soon as a legal candidate qualifies as an FECA-defined candidate by raising $5,000. (Well, the Act says raising or spending $5,000 — but we’re not talking about matching expenses here.)
Inconsistency with this definition is all the harder to justify if one is arguing that HR 1826 is non-partisan in its financing of candidates because it leaves in place the definition of “election” in 2 USC 431(1)(b) that includes all four of the following:
/*[=======]*[=======]*[=======]*[=======]*[=======]*
(A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election;
(B) a convention or caucus of a political party which has authority to nominate a candidate;
(C) a primary election held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party; and
(D) a primary election held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of individuals for election to the office of President.
*[=======]*[=======]*[=======]*[=======]*[=======]*/
If the new Title V which HR 1826 would add to the FECA does *not* respect this definition, then its bias against parties and candidates not allowed into primary elections is clear. Even if the new Title V *would* use this definition, it would still bar independent candidates from any share in “primary-equivalent” public funding.
And I am still gravely concerned about the debate “requirement” in Section 514 of HR 1826. For one thing, nothing says who’s going to hold such debates. For another, the restriction of pre-primary debates to intra-party squabbles would once again focus the media monopoly on the longer-established parties — and ignore the fact of tactical primary voting. If voters heard more equally about all their choices early on, they might vote differently in primary elections — including voting in different primaries, or not voting in any primary because they had found someone else to support.
I have said before, and I say now, that HR 1826 is not as *un*fair as HR 2056 . . . but neither of these bills is truly fair and non-partisan.
Pingback: Rex Parker Does the NYT Crossword Puzzle: * Institute California … | Educational California
I’d like to see public financing, but if they set the threshold for it so high that only the Repubs and Democrats ever get to participate, I’m not sure what it’s going to accomplish. I’d also like to see them pass legislation requiring prior shareholder approval for any corporate political spending. Not holding my breath for that, of course.