MyDD :: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate

Public Financing Bill Hits Senate

by Matt Stoller, Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:14:09 PM EST

Big news today - a bill to provide public financing for Congressional elections was introduced by Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter. Here's how it works - if you get a certain number of people to give you $5, then money is unlocked for a campaign based on your district, the media market, and/or population size for various states. If you face a wealthy opponent who self-funds, more money is unlocked to balance out the terrain.

A few weeks ago at PFAW's Young Elected Officials Network, I talked to one legislator in Arizona who told me about how Arizona elections changed from 1998 onward based on the new public financing system. It didn't help Democrats or Republicans, but it changed who ran and won in primaries. On the right, business-backed moderates lost primaries as a populist base became more important. On the left, the number of minorities and women running increased, though mostly they didn't win. The right was successful at understanding the system first, and capably organized to take full advantage of it from 1998-2004. At this point, Democrats have caught up.

This system on a Federal level will lead to a lot more challenges, much more diversity in who runs for office both racially and economically, and will increase the number of poor and middle class people in office, proportionately. I don't think it's going to privilege Democrats or Republicans, but it will in all likelihood privilege outsiders and those with a populist base more than those with media and various insider connections.

Jerome's hopefully going to come on and argue against this bill, and we can have a debate this week.

Tags: public financing, ethics, congress, clean elections (all tags)

Permalink :: 18 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate (3.00 / 1)

sounds very good... look forward to learning more about this.

we dems also have our work cut out for us - this bill seems quite similar to one that we had in MA, but that was never really implemented (our dem state ledg blocked, and then repealed it with gov help).

by selise on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:10:37 PM EST

p.s. (none / 0)

i see this bill as an incumbents vs outsiders bill.... not a partisan bill. hope we can find enough on both sides that want to this.

by selise on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:57:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: p.s. (3.00 / 1)

You'd think so, but that's not how it has played out in places like Maine, where they've used a similar voluntary public funding system for the past four election cycles. The incumbency rate is about the same as it was under private financing. This makes some sense, as incumbents still typically enjoy a big advantage in name recognition and experience.

One difference is that incumbents who often go unchallenged may be more likely to face challenges, which would make their job a bit harder even if they're very likely to win regardless. Still, the incumbency issue doesn't play out like you might expect--which could be good when it comes to winning support in the House and Senate.

And the public still overwhelming supports the system. It does change the way campaigns are run and the way lawmakers can act once they're in office, which is huge. It's very much a worthy cause.

by jzaharoff on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

interesting... (none / 0)

thanks for that interesting info.

hard to see who is driving the resistance then. certainly the MA state ledg (80% dem) hated it.

agreed it is a very worthy cause.

by selise on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Incumbency (3.00 / 1)

I don't know about incumbency, but there was a 40% increase in the number of contested primaries after Clean Elections were implemented.

More important, I think, is the time people can spend talking to real people and governing. In the 2000 AZ Gov. race, the non-publicly financed candidate spent 1 in 2 nights at a fundraiser. Janet Napolitano spent 0.

by CT student on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome is Against This? (none / 0)

Wow, that's hard for me to understand. Taking the money out of politics -- even incrementally - is really the only answer to a lot of the problems that progressives talk about.

by HSTruman on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:27:47 PM EST

Re: Jerome is Against This? (none / 0)

I too would love to know if there are any hidden pitfalls.

Matt, how about you pretend you're Jerome for a minute & give us a hint?

by Joe in Wynnewood PA on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is Against This? (none / 0)

I've not had time to look at the bill, but I am most likely not in favor of it. "Taking money out of politics" is a oxymoron. You are always going to have money in politics--either through taxation of the public at large, voluntary opting in by a part of the population, or by fundraising.

However, at the local level, I think it's not as problematic as it is at the federal or presidential level.

It's an interesting intersection where politicians that don't want to do the work to raise money and liberals that want the federal government to be the answer to reform politics agree on something that satisfies both desires.

I would instead point toward people-powered politics as the solution, one that's progressive in relying on the people to get togehter as a movement for collective action; one that's libertarian in not relying on the government to impose a solution; and one that's partisan in not wanting to give a dime to Republicans or conservative candidates.

And thats' without even getting into the political question of it, where I would rank it as a loser issue, below the federal gun laws that some Democrats pushed on the party in the 1990's.

I hope to have time to further get into the issue, but we'll see if that develops.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:41:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate (3.00 / 3)

If there were no candidates raising funds, what would journalists write about in the year or two proceeding federal election? And how would the candidates spend their time?

by countryboy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:34:36 PM EST

Re: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate (3.00 / 1)

You're right, they might have to cover tired non-news stories like Iraq, global warming, education and the like. I'm not sure how our media and democracy could handle such a jolt.

And the poor candidates wouldn't be able to spend hours on the phone dialing for dollars--you know how much they love doing that.

by jzaharoff on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate (none / 0)

Shaking hands and kissing babies, rather than dialing for dollars.

by juls on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I donate every year to Public Campaign (3.00 / 1)

They are pushing for Maine- and Arizona-style initiatives all across the country, and at the federal level. This is the path to getting most of the money out of politics. It's a voluntary system so is court-proof.

In Maine this has strengthened the progressive faction in the legislature considerable.

www.publiccampaign.org

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:09:37 PM EST

New Jersey Just Voted For (3.00 / 1)

Public Campaign Action Fund reports:

The New Jersey Senate voted 27 - 3 this past Thursday to renew the state's Clean Elections pilot project for another year. It's been a tough fight to win this one, with many delays in the Senate, but we're happy to see Clean Elections win yet again. The bill, which easily passed in the state Assembly, will next go to Governor John Corzine (D), who is expected to sign it when it reaches his desk.

by RandomNonviolence on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate (3.00 / 1)

We have a form of public financing here in Nebraska. If a candidate agrees to abide by spending limits, they are eligible for public funding should their opponent exceed those limits. In a state where the legislature is part-time and low-paying, and all but a few state and local elections are nonpartisan, this is important. And it does prevent money from ruling the system to a certain extent.

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:37:27 PM EST

Need to Read the Bill (none / 0)

Unless media vouchers is part of the public financing plan, it won't work. The TV stations will just jack up the prices.

by thirdestate on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:51:05 PM EST

Re: Need to Read the Bill (none / 0)

Yes, vouchers are part of the bill.

by jzaharoff on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Need to Read the Bill (3.00 / 1)

Here's a summary of the bill. Media vouchers are mentioned.

by countryboy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Public Financing Bill Hits Senate (3.00 / 1)

Can you argue that the status quo violates the First Amendment rights of people without money? To level the free speech playing field, equalize the amount of money everybody can spend. That way the middle or lower class challenger isn't automatically shut out. Or the representative in the pocket of the McDonald's lobby can still compete with the representative in the pocket of the fresh fruits and veg lobby, even though McDonald's has a lot more cash to lobby with.

by sozzy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:33:06 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.