I am sure most people here would agree that public financing of elections would be beneficial. The public supports some form of financing by a 3-1 margin.
But I imagine the attack ads would feature people saying: "I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to politicians." (Of course, if they don't fund elections, then GE and Citibank will, but nevermind about that).
Regardless, this could be a big hurdle for something the Fair Elections Now Act which has 134 co-sponsors in the House.
There is a specific part of that bill I think should receive more focus, or perhaps, be the main focus.
Fair Elections helps offset fundraising for, and the excessive cost of, media.
* Participating candidates receive a 20% reduction from the lowest broadcast rates
* Participating Senate candidates who win their primaries are eligible to receive $100,000 in media vouchers per congressional district in their state. House candidates receive one $100,000 media voucher.
* Participating candidates may also exchange their media vouchers for cash with their national political party committee.
A very large percentage of political funds go towards television advertisements, so it makes sense to have these rules.
Most public financing has a candidate get a certain amount of "seed" money to qualify for funds. Instead of receiving government funds, the FCC, which regulates the broadcast spectrum, can require local tv stations to give airtime to candidates.
Some people, like Public Citizen, think we could avoid congressional action at all and do this solely through the FCC, and they have a few court precedents to prove it:
Broadcasters volunteer for the right to receive exclusive access to scarce, publicly-owned spectrum accept public service obligations. They receive and keep their licenses by meeting the FCC's requirements, established under Section 309 of the Communications Act, to provide service in the public interest.
In FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 US 134, 138 (1940), the Supreme Court described the public interest standard in the Act as a "supple instrument for the exercise of discretion by the expert body which Congress has charged to carry out its legislative policy." For example, in NBC v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943), the Court upheld the Commission's authority to regulate broadcast network programming practices due to the FCC's "comprehensive mandate to encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest."
Candidates still must go to individuals and ask for their support. This levels the playing field – no matter what your income, you can "support" a candidate. Each time a certain number of people pledge their support to a candidate, they receive a voucher that gets them airtime.
There are some problems with the details, such as whether it would be just a dollar amount or adjusted for different market sizes.
The fact that taxpayers don't even have to shell out any money could be a big selling point. Obviously TV stations would hate it. But the airwaves are a public good; what could be better than using it to improve democracy.