The Tribune editorial board isn't wrong in their assessment that "the system that is supposed to wean presidential candidates from private fundraising doesn't work." Take our current presidential candidates: Clinton opted out long ago, Obama declined to accept matching funds in the primary, and McCain only accepted public funds as collateral on a $4 million line of credit for his then-reeling campaign.
But the way in which the Tribune board justifies their conclusion about the public financing system -- "Let's just do away with it" -- is quite sloppy:
Meanwhile, taxpayers are way ahead of the politicians—they've been abandoning this system. The money to publicly finance presidential campaigns comes from taxpayers who check off a box on their federal tax return. Check the box and you give $3 to the public-financing system.
Fewer than 7.5 percent of tax filers last year checked "yes" on the $3 contribution box. That's a big slide from the 28.7 percent who participated in 1980.
So not checking a tiny box on our insanely complicated tax forms demonstrates a lack of support? Not so fast:
Taxpayers can underwrite presidential elections by checking the box on their tax forms that sends $3 to the election fund, but fewer and fewer do. It's tempting to view this as popular rejection of public financing, but that would be simplistic. Polling suggests that when voters know what it takes to get public money, support shoots above 70%.
Americans know the system isn't right, but we want solutions that work, not just in presidential elections, but on the congressional level as well. Sen. Durbin's Fair Elections Act represents one viable proposal. Mark Schmitt's concept of "small-donor democracy" is another interesting approach, which he explains here:
Such systems might fall under the general rubric of "small-donor democracy": Give small donors the same opportunity to express the intensity of their preferences as large donors. Don’t build complex systems that put government in the position of trying to equalize all resources or ban all contributions. Instead, let voters shape the process through their own preferences, through organizing to enhance their power, and by using public funds to echo and enhance the preferences of ordinary citizens. Avenues by which large contributions influence politics will remain, whether they take the form of PACs, 527 committees, other nonprofits, or blogs. The best we can do is to offset their influence by broadening the range of voices that can be heard, as opposed to enhancing their influence by closing off other channels of money.
Post new comment