More Tax Supported Elections

Brad Smith, Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics points to recently introduced legislation that would increase taxpayer subsidies for federal elections by some 400 percent. Every year when you file your tax return, there is a box on your return that asks if you want to contribute $3 dollars to the presidential campaign financing program (I once had a tax preparer tell me I had to check the box--I no longer employ her services).

As Brad Smith points out

[P]residential races are substantially subsidized by taxpayers, to the tune of approximately $60 million or more per year. Over the years, taxpayers have been forced to subsidize three presidential campaigns by John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party, whose platform was based on a call for more transcendental meditation; seven presidential campaigns by Lyndon LaRouche, including one run from Federal Prison; and two by Lenore Fulani of the defunct New Alliance Party. They have also been forced to pay for runs by "major party candidates" such as Larry Agran, Milton Schaap, Keating Five Senator Alan Cranston, and many other long-forgotten figures. They have paid for balloon drops at national party conventions, and campaign attack ads - all told, over $2.4 billion in current dollars.

That is a lot of green to pay for all kinds of speech that at least half the country, on average, disagrees with on a regular basis.

In 2000 and 2004, President Bush declined public matching funds since taking matching funds carries with it all kinds of restrictions, including limits, on when and how the funds can be spent. Additionally, the private money raised by candidates that serves as the basis for the matching funds also is limited in the manner in which it is spent. In 2000, Bush was blasted for his actions--which were clearly in his best interest. In 2004, both Howard Dean and John Kerry declined public financing. I suspect that in 2008 both the leading Republican and Democratic candidates, no matter who they are, will forgo public financing--and they should.

Realizing that most national campaigns depend heavily upon significant fundraising machines, that fundraising machine should not be the American taxpayer. According to the Fact Sheet put out by Senator Feingold, the bill would increase by the current public funding match from 1 to 1 to 4 to for the first $200 of a contribution to a candidate. So instead of doubling the money a candidate gets, the money is quadrupled! Additionally, instead of matching starting on January 1 of election year, it will begin on July 1 of the year prior, almost doubling the length of time candidates can receive public money.

But here is my personal favorite provision, one that punishes candidates who opt out of the system by boosting their opponents:

Provides that if a candidate who is not participating in the public financing system raises or spends more than 20% more than a primary spending limit, the spending limit for all of the participating candidates of that party is increased by $50 million, indexed for inflation. An additional 1:1 match of eligible contributions will also be made available to all participating candidates.

Russ Feingold has aspirations to the Presidency and clearly this law would benefit him greatly in his quest for the Presidency.

The Presidential funding system was established in the wake of Watergate, a time when the funding of presidential campaigns was not transparent, where big, anonymous donors probably called the shots a great deal. But the system is an anachronism today. The fact that Presidential campaigns must file campaign finance reports on a monthly basis, the low itemization threshold of $200 per cotnributor, the current $2100 per election limit per person, and the speed and efficiency of electronic filing means that knowing who is paying for the campaign of any candidate is made easy for the press, and therefore the public.

Brad Smith talks of priorities for the tax money that is to be allocated for the presidential campaign system

Leaving aside fundamental philosophical questions of whether it is ever proper to force taxpayers to support the political speech of candidates they oppose, or ignoring the particulars of this proposal, the question of tax financing of campaigns becomes one of priorities. In the great scheme of the federal budget, the subsidy is not a lot - although even at current levels it is enough to fund, for example, the entire budget of the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

But it is exactly those philosophical questions we should be answering. Should the goverment be funding political speech? At a time when more and more political activity is being regulated, through the efforts of Feingold himself and others, where do we draw the line? At what point do we stop allowing the government to tell us, and the canddiates we support or oppose, when and how much political speech is proper. Should the government be subsidizing the four day infomercials knows as party conventions? Should the government be in the business of paying for attack ads, negative campaigning and the like?

Milton Freidman once said that if you want more of something, subsidize it. I love and embrace the idea of competitive elections, but competition in elections comes from dynamic candidates, capable of energizing the voters, and yes, convincing the voters to give them money. Competitive elections can only be grown through the rough and tumble of electoral politics and the growth of energetic and engaging candidates, capable of finding their own way by raising the money for the campaigns themselves.
Competitive elections cannot be subsidized, they cannot be bought through public expenditures.