Our democracy is in danger. We must reform the way we finance political campaigns to ensure the most vibrant democracy possible. Are these statements sensationalist? I believe they are not. Is having our candidate pool restricted to the financial elite or politically connected the best path to a vibrant democracy? I believe it is not. Is the solution to this problem one that is elusive and difficult? I believe it is not.
Many citizens are restricted from running for elected office simply due to lack of access to the funds needed to be a viable candidate. This affects all of us, no matter our party affiliation. There is a bi-partisan effort in congress to fix this problem. The Fair Elections Now Act put forth by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) is a step in the right direction; however, there is a critical subtlety that, if addressed, can make this bill the hallmark campaign finance reform bill of the modern political era: The limits on the matching funds the government will provide must be eliminated.
Read how this can be achieved simply and transparently below the jump.
Let me reassure the reader who may be inclined to reject this last statement out of a reasonable concern for the financial burden on the taxpayer. It is only by guaranteeing limitless government matching funds that we fully employ the awesome powers of the free market to ensure that campaigns are as efficient as possible. And cost the taxpayers as little as possible.
The current campaign process involves two major activities: raising money and spreading a message. Governmental matching funds allow candidates to spend less time asking for money and more time spreading their message and actually talking to the electorate about their hopes and concerns. Governmental matching funds also allow the candidate to be free of obligations (real or perceived) to donors since candidates are free from relying on their money to finance a campaign. However, this argument breaks down if a candidate were to enter the race who could easily raise more money than the government limit. We only have to look at the last presidential election where both major party candidates opted to not take the government’s matching funds to see that this is a real possibility.
Imagine however, that government matching funds are limitless. Two candidates are running for office. Candidate A decides to accept government funding while Candidate B does not. Candidate B has to raise money so he asks donors to support his campaign. However, each donor knows that for every dollar given to Candidate B, Candidate A will receive that exact amount from the government. By supporting the campaign of Candidate B, the donor is also supporting the campaign of Candidate A. Thus, the donor sees no point in giving money to Candidate B. Candidate B cannot raise money for his campaign and is at a large disadvantage in the election.
On seeing that this is the logical outcome, Candidate B will accept government funding and both candidates will financially be on an even playing field. This is a rather straight-forward example, however, there are three subtleties that should be noted.
This affect only takes place if the government matching funds are limitless. If they are not, Candidate B could convince the donor that he or she must contribute. Since Candidate A is only getting a limited amount of money from the government, if Candidate B can raise more than that limit Candidate B will certainly have an advantage.
It should also be noted that every dollar spent on a campaign is considered a donation to that campaign. A candidate who is independently wealthy may spend as much his or her own money on the campaign, however this money should then be considered a donation from the candidate to his or her campaign. Thus, the opponent will receive an equal sum from the government.
Finally, we must preserve our First Amendment rights. Under these campaign financing rules, every citizen maintains the right to donate as much or as little to any campaign of their choosing. These rules make absolutely no restrictions on how much may be donated. They only stipulate that an equal sum will be provided to the challenger(s). Thus, we preserve entirely our constitutionally-protected rights to freedom of speech.
Is our democracy in danger? I believe it is. With the Fair Elections Now Act, Senators Durbin and Spector, and Congressman Tierney, have proposed a good start and with one fundamental change we can make this a very powerful piece of legislation. We must not cap the amount of matching funds that the government will provide to candidates. This is the only way to ensure that free market economics will take hold to drive the cost of campaigns down and save every taxpayer’s hard-earned money. Of course, why should we stop at congressional campaigns? This bill should be extended to include all national offices including the President of the United States. Can we legislate campaign finance reform that strengthens our democracy by encouraging all citizens to participate more fully in the political process and still protects our freedom of speech? I believe we can.
(For those who enjoy law speak, the details of this plan are laid out below.)
THE FAIR PLAN: A REASONABLE, INNOVATIVE, SIMPLE, AND EQUITABLE APPROACH TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE
- Premises:
1.1. We must protect constitutionally-protected freedom of speech
while providinga level playing field for all candidates vying
for elected office.
1.2. It is beneficial to a democracy to afford all persons the
opportunity to seek public office without regard to personal or
family financial resources.
1.3. It is beneficial to a democracy to afford all persons the
opportunity to seek public office without regard to their
individual socio-economic class or status.
1.4. It is beneficial to a democracy to encourage
"citizen-legislators" and "citizen-executives", rather than
restricting the pursuit of public office to an economic and/or
social elite.
- In this plan there are two simple options:
2.1. "Opt Out": Receive no government funds for your campaign.
2.2. "Opt In": Receive government funds for your campaign.
- In this plan the rules are simple and fair:
3.1. Regardless of the candidate’s choice of campaign funding option,
each candidate must disclose the origin of all money that comes
into the campaign fund.
3.2. If you choose Opt Out, you will get $0 from the government. You
may raise as much money as you are able from individual US
citizens or residents only, no foreign nationals, no corporations
or other "for-profit" entities, no labor unions, no charitable
("401c(3)") organizations, no "non-profit" organizations,
including "PACs".*
3.3. If you choose Opt In,
3.3.1. The government will guarantee funds of $X amount regardless
of the amount of money raised by opponents.
3.3.1.1. The "$X" amount will be determined in advance for each
particular office and election based on an impartial,
non-partisan, professional analysis of the reasonable
costs of an effective campaign giving reasonable exposure
to each candidate’s positions. This analysis will
consider the size of the electorate for each office and
the exigencies of various geographic areas and media
markets.
3.3.1.2. No additional funds may be expended by any entity over
which the candidate, the candidate’s family, or the
candidate’s employees, agents, or representatives have
any influence or control.
3.3.2. If a "qualified" opponent chooses Opt Out and raises $Z
amount of campaign funds, the government will guarantee
additional funds, $Y, such that $X+$Y = $Z.
3.3.2.1. Essentially there is no advantage to "opting out".
3.3.3. All funds received by a campaign—either privately or from the
government—must be expended on the campaign or returned,
proportionately, to the source of such funds immediately
following the election.
- Candidates would need to "qualify"—
4.1. "Pre-Primary" — would require a certain minimal percentage of
signatures of eligible registered voters
4.2. "Post-Primary" — would require that the candidate be officially
"on the ballot", either as a party nominee or by nominating
petition.
- This plan in no way infringes any person’s right of free expression because any candidate may raise as much money as desired to spend advancing the candidate’s agenda if the candidate chooses to opt out. This plan establishes a way in which all candidates, rich or poor, well-connected or aloof, may have the chance to appeal to the people, without regard to financial background.
(*Constitutionally-protected freedoms of expression must be unbridled for persons residing within the United States and U. S. citizens living abroad; more stringent restrictions can be placed on "commercial" expression and that of non-citizens not in the United States.)
— J. Adam M. Cunha, PhD & Timothy M. Cunha, JD – March 2007