HR 1826, the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to provide for public funding of candidates for Congress, has gained 7 co-sponsors since the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Citizens United v FEC on January 21. The bill now has 133 co-sponsors.
During the same period, no other election law bill in the House has gained any co-sponsors, except that HR 3025 has gained one co-sponsor. HR 3025 is the bill to require states to use bipartisan commissions to draw U.S. House district boundaries. It now has 26 co-sponsors.
Here is a New York Times item from February 3 about the chances of Congress passing public funding for candidates for Congress. Thanks to Eric Brown’s Political Activity Law for the link.
HR 3025: Bi-partisan is still partisan.
HR 1826: Not all public financing is created equal.
If the Green Party of Connecticut wins in the 2nd circuit against the discriminatory aspect of Connecticut’s public funding law, that will make it very difficult for Congress to pass any bill that discriminates on the basis of partisan affiliation. Another thing that makes it difficult for Congress to pass a discriminatory bill is that Bernie Sanders was elected as an independent so many times (to either the House or the Senate), it just doesn’t compute to write a law that discriminates against him.
Then HR1826 won’t pass. Though it would surprise me if that’s what Richard is intending to say.
The news from Maine about Green gubernatorial candidate Lynne Williams having to drop out of public financing for that race because of the recently raised threshold shows plainly the potential for discrimination for old established parties (and candidates) against newer parties and true no-party-affiliation independents in what might outwardly appear to be a non-partisan system. (And I think the District Court agreed with this argument in _GP of CT v Garfield_.)
HR1826 is not *as* biased for the Ds and Rs as HR2056, which actually has 50% higher thresholds for others — among other things. But HR1826 is *not* UNbiased.
A better approach would be a low threshold — at or close to the level of fundraising or expenditure that triggers campaign-finance reporting requirements (or for federal candidates, meets FEC’s defintion of an official candidate). Anyone crossing that low threshold with qualifying contributions (or an equivalent term) would qualify for *some* public funding — either on a formula match or perhaps in some kind of stepped release, capped off at a maximum level which could presumably be calculated much the same way as laws and bills calculate the big chunks of money handed out now.