In this age of scandal and juicy stories of corruption in high office, it is easy to let the little travesties of a far-right majority slip through the cracks. This is, unfortunately, too well-known and exploited, which is why (as I
wrote earlier) Katrina-related reconstruction is being highjacked by those who would fix our system on the backs of the poor.
This is not what I want to talk about today.
Rather, I would like to discuss a modest program that has sustained the primary campaigns of John Edwards, Wesley Clark, John McCain, and countless others, and has been used in every general election since its post-Watergate inception: The Presidential Public Funding System, which is now in jeopardy under the guise of post-Katrina budget cutting.
It was just a tiny notice in
Roll Call (subs. required), but the implications are far-reaching.
Republican Reps. John Doolittle of California and Randy Neugebauer of Texas want to do away with public financing of presidential elections, and hope to ax the program.
The bill, scheduled to hit the House floor early next month, would eliminate the voluntary check-off on tax returns that allows filers to divert a small portion of their federal taxes to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with this program, it is based on the voluntary check off box on your income tax form that earmarks $3 of your income taxes for a public fund to be dispersed to presidential candidates in realtion to how much they raise themselves. By accepting public money, the candidate agrees to limit the amount they can raise per cycle. The fund will match the first $250 of every individual donation. This is to emphasize the importance of small donations and donors and limit the influence single, large contributors can have. There have only been 3 candidates to turn down public primary funding since its creation: George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Howard Dean. However, both Bush and Kerry used the public system for the 2004 general election.
There are problems with the Public Financing system as is. It is under-funded and sets a low cap on donations, which is why Dean, Kerry, and Bush all opted out. Many have speculated that for a candidate to remain viable in 2008, they will HAVE to opt out of public money. This is why the program needs revamping to catch up with changes in the cost of campaigning since the 70s. However, to eliminate the program is exactly the wrong course to take. Should the public funding system cease, teh importance of large, individual contributions will rise as the small donors are no longer matched and can't compete with a smaller pool of larger donors. Subsequently, the only candidates that will truly be able to compete will be the well connected party-preferred or the individually wealthy. The choices in the primary, for both parties, will be severely limited.
It is not a glamour issue. And it is not in the spotlight, but its elimination will have a chilling effect on candidates we care about. Wesley Clark would not have been able to compete. Neither would Edwards. Neither would McCain. Even if they weren't successful in the end, don't you think the public was well-served by their presence in the primaries? Don't you think there voice deserves to be heard.
The cost of this program is not the issue. It's on the chopping block by the Republican Study Committee because they don't like the idea of it. Call your representative. Call your senator. Don't let them slip it in under the radar while everyone is waiting for Fitzmas and the Miers hearings.