More on Presidential Public Funding Program

Over the past week, there has been a general discussion in the news media and among campaign finance geeks about the potential demise of the presidential public funding program. Now via Prof. Hasen's Election Law Blog comes this Washington Post Letter to the Editor. William Santoro of Wincheter, MA writes:

The problem with the program is that it is voluntary on both sides of the equation. Those who pay federal income taxes may allocate $3 of their taxes to the election fund (a provision that neither reduces nor increases one's tax liability), and the candidates choose whether they want to accept public financing in return for abiding by certain restrictions.

snip

Some have cried that such a system would violate First Amendment rights. But what about the public's right to free and fair elections?

I will certainly agree with the first paragraph. The system is entirely voluntary. I think it would be an interesting exercise to learn the ideological or partisan breakdown of those who contribute their $3. Also, it would be interesting to know the state where there people come from and whether that state has a public financing program. But I digress.

With a voluntary system on both ends, you ensure a fairly important concept, freedom and liberty. Mr. Santoro goes on later to say that the entire program, both funding and participation by candidates should be mandatory. He then closes with the last paragraph quoted above.

First, and on a large scale, there is no proof that a privately funded campaign is in any way inherently unfree or unfair in such a way as to be rectified with public funding. Of course, some candidates raise more money than others but they do not always win-see Steve Forbes or Ross Perot. Similarly, the actual campaign may be unfair the the actual election is generally not--all conspiracy theories about voting machines notwithstanding.

Second, the First Amendment rights here are quite important as are the sanctity of elections. The courts would have to balance those interests. But the funding and financing of elections does not rise to the same level of constitutional concern. I know that "checking the box" neither increases nor decreases my tax burden. But the use of tax dollars, anyone's tax dollars, to fund political speech I not only disagree with but work vehemently in opposition to simple chills me to the bone.

Third, the act of giving money to candidates engages those who contribute. Even if you give $5 to some local candidate, you are almost assuredly going to vote for that candidate. The contributor is engaged in the political process and is that not what we are seeking? If you "give" by having a mandatory three dollars go to a public fund, how engaged are you? Are you now more likely to go vote? I think not.

Fourth, and finally, the underlying assumption about public financing, on both the left and the right, is that we can elminate the influence of "special interests." This supposition simply cracks me up, but special interest is always a definition based upon one's own leanings. Those on the right view "special interest" as union money, Hollywood money and any other left wing group. Conversely, those on the left think only about "corporate money," the Christian right and gun-toting rednecks. In fact, both sides are correct. Money is the lifeblood of politics--you can't get around it and you can't get rid of it.

The Christian Science Monitor weighed in today on the debate:

A bill introduced last year and slated to be reintroduced in the new Congress would release primary-campaign funds six months earlier, significantly boost spending caps ($150 million for the primaries and $100 million for the general election), and raise the rate at which private donations get matched. And if one candidate opts out of the system and runs against a candidate who agrees to federal spending caps, the FEC would pump extra money into the participant's coffers to close the spending gap, if his or her opponent spends more than 120 percent of the FEC's limits.

It's too late to bring these changes to bear on the 2008 race. But the goal of reducing the influence of "big money" remains an important one. When the bill is reintroduced, Congress should continue to express its reform-minded mood by passing it.

The problem with this "reform" is that it really will do little to suppress campaign funding. Once campaigns are subsidized they will simply become more expensive because candidates won't have to really work beyond a minimal level to raise money and there is no market check on campaign spending. Afterall, if you can get free money, why bother actually working to raise more than the minimum.

The goal should not be "free and fair" elections, but competitive ones. On the presidential level, we are always going to have competitive elections. As long as that remains the case, all will be well.