Down With Plutocrats and Fat Cat DonorsGive the rest of us money to spend on campaign contributions.
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007, at 2:23 PM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponPatriot Dollars would mark a decisive advance over the existing system of federal funding initiated in the aftermath of Watergate. Congress then tried to break the domination of big money by offering presidential candidates a federal subsidy if they limited their private fund raising. If, for example, a candidate in this year's primaries restricts fund raising to $40 million, the government will match each $250 private contribution with $250 in federal funds, up to a ceiling of $20 million. While this yields a total budget of $60 million, front-runners have no incentive to accept the deal when they can raise $25 million a quarter. Once a single candidate opts out, competitors must do the same or face a crushing blitz of TV ads. While the Watergate system remains on the books, it is irrelevant in practice. Indeed, the leading candidates have already made it clear that they will also refuse federal money and rely exclusively on private financing in the general election.
Even when it was operational, the old funding scheme pushed ordinary citizens to the sidelines. The Federal Election Commission simply writes each qualifying candidate a fat check. Ordinary citizens play a minor role—they can send a few of their tax dollars to the generic presidential campaign fund by checking an appropriate box on their 1040 on April 15, but they can't choose a particular candidate as a beneficiary. Unsurprisingly, a mere 8 percent of taxpayers have bothered to check the right box in recent years, leaving only $170 million in the federal kitty. This paltry sum is insufficient to fend off a Bloomberg-style attack, even if candidates were inclined to take the federal money.
In contrast, our initiative transforms campaign finance into a vehicle for active citizenship. Voters are invited to send their $25 to the candidate of their choice at the time when it really counts. Since the system puts ordinary citizens at center stage, they will give broad support for a plan that can finally allow them to take control of campaign finance away from big givers. Their Patriot Dollars will overwhelm the $1 billion that the current crop of candidates are expected to raise during this entire campaign cycle (assuming Bloomberg stays out).
Nothing can be done in time for the current campaign for 2008. It's just too late for serious consideration, and Bush would veto such a proposal anyway. But at the very least, the present crop of candidates should be pressed to propose Patriot Dollars for 2012. The plan won't solve all our problems. It would still allow candidates to raise large sums from special interests under the McCain-Feingold rules. But it represents a practical and constitutional response to the increasing dominance of big money. $3 billion is a small price for democratizing presidential politics.
The Tiger-Obama Cover Golf Digest Wishes It Could Unprint
Four Reasons The Blind Side Nearly Toppled New Moon
AOL's Plan To Flood the Web With Idiotic Celebrity Content
Amazing Photos of Obama's Secret Service Agents at Work
If You Want To Fix Darfur, Fix Chad First
A Close Reading of the Victoria's Secret Christmas Catalog
Remarks from the Fray:
We should progressively tax campaign spending, not subsidize it. Adding more money to politics is like trying to control a California wildfire by throwing gasoline on it.
I'd say a 10% tax on the first 10 million, and then a sliding scale with 50% paid on any dollar after 100 million is good. Under such laws, the 2004 presidential election would have put well over $250 million into the general fund, sparing taxpayers both the annoyance of political ad saturation, and shifting the tax burden to idiots with nothing better to do with their money than subsidize lying.
--Madai
(To reply, click here.)
Most elections are not like the next presidential election. In most elections, there is a prohibitive favorite in at least one party, usually the President running for a second term, or the incumbent Vice President.
Giving everyone $25 allows some of the members of the "we already have our candidate" party to spend their money supporting the most untenable candidate to weaken the opposing side. If this scheme were in place in 2004, lots of Republicans could have given to Nader or perhaps Sharpton.
While I'm sure this would make for entertaining election seasons, I doubt it is the best way to pick the best candidates.
--rackstraw
(To reply, click here.)
Forget about trying to regulate the amount of money each candidate can raise.
Instead let's limit by geography. The only people allowed to donate to a particular candidate's campaign are registered voters in that candidate's district.
So a candidate for a House seat can only raise money from his the constituents in his district, a Senator from registered voters in his state and only Presidential candidates would be able to raise money nationwide.
Such a system would end the practice of a Hilary Clinton running for Senate in New York raising a big chunk of her war chest in California or Rep. Don Young from Alaska getting his cash from Texas and Gulf Coast Oil people.
Candidates would be forced to spend more time in their home districts raising money (and listening to their actual constituents) rather than on various fundraising jaunts hundreds if not thousands of miles away. And since in many districts the population is so poor many candidates won't be able to afford big TV buys they would have to do two things; spend more time in 'town meetings' and other such events directly interacting with voters to get their support and two, they would have a serious incentive to improve the overall economic situation of their district.
Such a system would also even out the process. Bill Gates is free to give as much money as he wants to his Representative and Senators and the Presidential race but he can't use his money to influence the races in my district or state. In other words the big donors would be truly limited in who they could give money too.
The system passes constitutional muster because it in no way limits anyone's speech rights. Everybody has their own Representative, Senator and President that they can donate money to. They just can't give money outside their district the same way they can't vote outside their district.
--thorin01
(To reply, click here.)
Money is not speech. It is amplification. The Supreme Court got it dead wrong. Money in politics only buys you a louder bullhorn. It is an expression only of volume, not of content, and should not equate to speech. Does somebody with a huge amplifier and speakers have the right, under the constitution, to stand on a street corner and express his opinion so loudly he drowns out everyone else? I don't think the Founders wanted free speech to equate to whoever SHOUTS THE LOUDEST, via big campaign budgets.
Secondly: Instead of limiting campaign contributions, why don't we limit campaign spending instead? Force every candidate to operate within a strictly capped campaign budget, with independent auditing. Pick a reasonable amount - whatever it is, keep it tight, so as to make the spending decisions tough ones. And that is the most each candidate can spend, He/she is free to raise funds up to the spending limit, and spend it however he/she thinks best. It would be fun seeing candidates forced to live within their "means," and record how efficiently they are able to allocate very tight, very limited resources.
--RobertDublin
(To reply, click here.)
As citizens, we are free to spend our money on any legal activity, and spending money on a political campaign is allowed in the First Amendment. But while having Mayor Bloomberg spending his money upsets Ackerman and Ayers, these very same men have no problem spending your money. […] Who is this mystery "you" whose money Ackerman and Ayers look to distribute? Their implied answer is, of course, the government's. But the government does not own the money; it collects it for the expressed purpose of servicing national and local needs.
The American public does not need a middleman (and a rather ineffectual one at that) to redistribute $25.00 per citizen. If a person wishes to contribute to one or many campaigns, one is free to do so. If the government wishes to lower our tax burden to allow greater freedom of economic choices, please do so.
--IMKessel
(To reply, click here.)
(6/26)