Durbin-Spector-Tierney Campaign Finance Measure

Yesterday, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Spector (R-PA) and Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) announced the introduction of legislation (S.937 and H.R. 1614) in both Chambers to reform the financing of elections for the House and Senate.

These bills, according to the Senator's press release,

"Today the amount of money spent in top ten competitive Senate races averages $34 million per campaign - double what it was just four years ago. It takes a mountain of money - about $7 million on average - even to lose a Senate campaign. This is not sustainable," said Durbin. "People who say the public shouldn't have to pay for elections are missing the point: The American people already pay for elections - in ways that favor incumbents and special interests and in a Congressional agenda spawned too many times by those who finance our campaigns. Public financing will cost us only a fraction of what the current system costs."

Granted that the current electoral system is an expensive, ever increasing arms race of warchests and fundraising prowess. However, I am not so sure that public financing is the way to go. Durbin's description of his bill sounds complex and that is not necessarily a good thing and certainly does acknowledge that incumbents have a distinct advantage in the money race. Durbin makes the request "reformer's nod" to the influence of "special interests," but fails to understand that his proposal is supported by a fairly lengthy list of "special interests."

But looking at the proposal as described, I am left with a feeling that the campaign finance law is about to get a great deal more complicated. The provisions sound simple, but will require even more attentiveness and perhaps even legal expertise to navigate than is necessary if the law were simplified in general. (Don't get me wrong, as a campaign finance lawyer, the more complicated the law, the more work I get, but that is a paycheck issue, not a policy issue. I can always find other legal work).

As Bob Bauer notes in his commentary on the bill, we are of course talking about something "new,":

The Fair Elections Now Act, as a public financing measure, does not break entirely new ground. In broad outline its lineage is recognizable: qualifying contributions, formulas keyed to state size, additional support for candidates who face non-participating opponents. In its details, however, it clears a path to a revitalized public financing option; it offers a more plausible, constructive response to the escalating fundraising pressures in Congressional campaigns than steadily thickening layers of regulatory restriction. This is an important contribution to the progressive reform debate.

snip

What will be the relationship of this proposed measure to the existing, bulky rulebook? This is not clear, and it would be unfortunate if public financing were considered without taking into account and thoroughly revising the private financing restrictions to achieve some comparable, complementary emphasis on participation in lieu of heavy restriction. A first step was needed, however, that would redirect the discussion away from limits to resource and from restriction to expansion, and the Durbin-Specter-Tierney appears to be that first step.

As a general rule, I am opposed to public funding, simply because I want less government interference and I think that the process of fundraising puts the candidates in contact with more people. However, I will readily admit that the funds race has become a distraction from real politics.

But Bauer is correct, just tacking a public funding mechanism onto existing law regarding private funding is not going to solve the problem as a whole. I would like to see more attention paid to candidate (read incumbent) war chests, a better understanding of the restrictions on speech currently codified in the law and a removal of those restrictions, an end to the year round fundraising by putting limits on when incumbents can start raising money, and other real changes to the law, hopefully simplifying changes.

David Donnelly and Gary Kalman, who work for Public Campaign Action Fund and U.S. PIRG respectively, had this to say:

The Fair Elections Now Act is a straightforward reform that encourages more participation from ordinary voters. Candidates who agree to strict spending limits and to take no large dollar donations can qualify for public funding by raising a specific number of small contributions -- usually five dollars -- from people in their state. Instead of raising contributions from the wealthiest of the wealthy, Senate candidates would be required to raise small contributions from a massive numbers of people back in their home district. If they're outspent by an opponent or an outside group, they can receive fair fight funds, up to a limit, to respond. Once they've qualified, their fundraising is done, and they can spend the campaign walking, talking, and listening to voters.

Arizona and Maine have seen solid success with similar systems. In Arizona, nine of the eleven statewide officeholders ran and won under a Fair Elections-style system. In Maine, 84 percent of the State Legislature did as well.

Well, Maine has a few problems with the legislature raiding the election fund, so it may not be the best example to use.

But one important note needs to be addressed and can't be until the bill text is presented, that is, How will these public campaigns be funded? I know with tax dollars, but how will those tax dollars be appropriated? From where will the funds come? Already, the presidential public financing system is suffering from a dearth of tax form check off donors. What mechanism will fund the campaign fund? When the language becomes available, the details will be interesting, particularly in light of Congress's "pay-go" provisions where new spending has to be matched with an offset.

This will be interesting to follow.