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.
Born 1950, Married, Living in Austin Texas, Semi
Retired Small Business owner and investor. My political interest
evolved out of his business experience that the best decisions come out of an objective gathering of information and a pragmatic consideration of costs and benefits. I am interested in promoting Centrist candidates and Policies. My posts are mostly about people and policies that I believe are part of the solution rather the problem.