On September 23, the U.S. House of Representatives Administration Committee passed HR6116, the bill to provide public funding for candidates for U.S. House. Candidates who raise at least $50,000 from voters in their state (not their district) qualify. They receive four times as much in public funding as they had raised in qualifying contributions. To qualify, they must receive contributions from 1,500 people. These contributions range from $5 to $100. Amounts over $100 can be received but don’t count toward qualifying. If 1,500 is a larger number than one-fourth of 1% of the voting age population of a state, then the number of qualifying contributions needed declines to one-fourth of 1% of the voting age population. That latter provision makes it somewhat easier for a Wyoming resident to qualify.
The vote was 5-2, with one abstention. Three Republicans are on the committee, but one was not present. The other two Republicans voted against the bill. Five Democrats on the Committee voted “Yes”. Artur Davis, a Democrat from Alabama, abstained, although before the vote was cast, he spoke against the bill. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the news that the bill had passed the Committee, and thanks to Bill Maurer and Susan Anderson for the vote breakdown. The vote was a voice vote and the Committee did not make a record of who voted how.
The bill, if passed, would take effect on January 1, 2011. Whether it passes or not, it is legally and politically significant that the bill does not discriminate for or against any candidate based on that candidate’s party affiliation, or lack of party affiliation. This will probably be relevant when the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to review Connecticut’s public funding system, which is highly discriminatory against independent candidates.
An almost identical bill, introduced last year, is HR 1826. HR 6116 was introduced on September 14, 2010, and copied the contents of HR 1826 to a large degree. The bill doesn’t include provisions for U.S. Senate candidates, because it is traditional in Congress that bills that affect members of one house should originate in that particular house.
Where are the P.R. and App.V. reforms in the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander Congress ???
It appears to be drafted in a manner that would support Top 2 election formats like is used in Washington, and beginning in 2011 in California and Louisiana.
This could be interpreted as implicit approval of Top 2 congressional elections, including their election schedule under Congress’s time, place, manner authority; and would preempt the courts from overturning the Top 2 Open Primary on grounds that they don’t comply with the election date set by Congress.
BTW, if I read the law correctly it appears to set the qualifying contribution collection period to a maximum of 120 days, ending 60 days before a primary. So in Illinois qualifying candidates would need to gather their 1,500 contributions in August to December of the odd year.
It doesn’t appear to prohibit contributions from non-citizens or minors.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on contributions on minors giving campaign contributions, in McConnell v FEC.