Time to Revisit Public Election Funds

The New York Times has a piece on the obsolescence of the Public Election Fund which can not compete with the escalating amounts of money it takes to run a Presidential campaign for a front runner.

Any primary candidate who raises an initial $100,000 receives federal money to match the first $250 of each donation. For 2008, candidates could receive matching grants of as much as $25 million for the primary season, grants of about $15 million for a nominating convention and grants of about $83 million for the general election.

The system is financed by taxpayers who check a box on their returns to allocate $3 to an election fund, with about 33 million people a year in recent years directing a total of about $400 million to each quadrennial presidential election.

It may be that while this fund is making less and less impact on the Presidential elections, it could make more and more impact on House and Senate campaigns. Imagine if most candidates needed to raise 50% less money from special interests to run a competitive campaign for office? It may not completely eliminate the corrosive effects of money on decision making, and it doesn’t deal with outside group support, but it sure would be going in the right direction.

5 Responses to “Time to Revisit Public Election Funds”

1. Paul Silver says:

   January 23, 2007 at 5:47 am

   In the U.S. Congress, Reps. John Tierney (D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) are lead sponsors of H.R. 3099, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, which would provide full public financing for House candidates.
2. Paul Silver says:

   January 23, 2007 at 5:58 am

   Check out http://www.campaignmoney.org/

   Here are the sponsors of H.R. 3099:

   Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 2/16/2006
   Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 2/16/2006
   Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] – 2/16/2006
   Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 2/16/2006
   Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 6/28/2005
   Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/8/2006
   Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] – 6/28/2005
   Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 2/1/2006
   Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 2/16/2006
   Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 2/1/2006
   Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 2/1/2006
   Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 6/28/2005
   Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 6/28/2005
   Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 6/28/2005
   Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Miller, George [CA-7] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] – 6/28/2005
   Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 6/28/2005
3. Chris says:

   January 23, 2007 at 7:24 am

   the Public Election Fund which can not compete with the escalating amounts of money it takes to run a Presidential campaign for a front runner.

   That wouldn’t be a problem if candidates were limited to the money from the fund.
4. Kevin H says:

   January 23, 2007 at 5:49 pm

   I think we have the hole in the system right here:
   

   But the fund has faced chronic shortfalls as the percentage of taxpayers contributing has declined to less than 10 percent last year from over 30 percent in the 1970s.

   There should be no way for people to opt in or out. I would be fine if with a system where funds could be directed by choice. That is say you could force your $3 this year to go to Clinton or Obama or whoever, and any money which wasn’t directed would then go into some sort of general pool. This would still allow people to express their ‘freedom of speach’ while provideing an ammount of money that could match private donors.

   There is still the problem of soft money contributions….
5. Paul Silver says:

   January 31, 2007 at 5:48 am

   Lawmakers unveil election financing bill

   By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 30, 5:32 PM ET

   WASHINGTON – As the cost of presidential campaigns moves toward the $1 billion mark, leading congressional advocates of tougher campaign finance laws want to reduce the influence of special interests by pumping more taxpayer money into the system.
   ADVERTISEMENT

   Three House members and one senator on Tuesday introduced legislation that would increase the amount of money in the presidential public financing system and increase the spending limits for candidates who participate in it. It would not change the rules for the 2008 presidential election.

   “This system that’s in place now is not sustainable,” said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., who introduced the legislation in the House with Reps. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., and David Price (news, bio, voting record), D-N.C. Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

   The legislation would triple the amount available to candidates during state primaries and eliminate state spending limits. It would increase the amount available for general elections to $100 million (More than $80 million would be available in 2008). It also would offer more money to candidates whose opponents chose to decline the public money and raise more on their own.

   To pay for the extra money, the sponsors would increase the voluntary presidential campaign checkoff on income tax returns from $3 to $10.