A bill will be introduced in Congress within a week to provide for public funding for candidates for Congress, according to this New York Times story of March 23. The sponsors will be Senators Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in the Senate, and John B. Larson (D-Connecticut) in the House.
The article does not say if the bill will disregard the partisan affiliation of candidates or not. The Clean Elections laws in Maine and Arizona do not discriminate for or against candidates based on the partisan affiliation of those candidates. But past bills for public funding in Congress have had separate rules, depending on whether the candidate is a Democrat or Republican, on the one hand, or an independent or a minor party member. The bill will provide public funding for U.S. House candidates who raise at least $50,000 from at least 1,500 residents of their own district. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Quoting from the article (in the Washington _Post_, by the way):
[=============== start quote ===============]
Under the proposal, House candidates would
qualify for public money by raising a minimum
of $50,000 from at least 1,500 people in
their home states. The minimum for Senate
candidates would vary by state, based on
population.
Qualified House candidates would receive
$900,000 in public funding, split 40 percent
for the primary campaign and 60 percent for
the general campaign. Senate candidates
would receive $1.25 million, plus
additional money based on the size of
their states. For candidates in
particularly competitive races or those
facing self-financed opponents, the system
would match donations of $100 or less from
in-state contributors at a ratio of four
to one, meaning $4 in public money for
every $1 raised.
In addition, public funding would be used
to offset the cost of media purchases for
participating candidates.
“It turns the current system completely
upside down,” said Nick Nyhart, president
and chief executive of Public Campaign,
who is advocating for the legislation.
“This system takes a direct attack on
the bond between big campaign donors and
candidates for office. This severs that
bond. It means instead there’s a bond
between a candidate and people in their
district that want to support either
her or him.”
[=============== end quote ===============]
Observations:
————
The bill is, of course, tied to candidates raising money rather than any candidates who qualify for the ballot. Still, 1,500 donors within a state would generally be easier to find than within a single Congressional district — though not, of course, in states with only one district.
Regardless of that, the bill as described has an almost all-or-nothing aspect to its matching funds . . . rather than letting a candidate who’s raised *some* grassroots funds get *some* match based on the amount, with perhaps a cap set at the total amount mentioned here.
No mention of caps on how big a donation can be to be matchable . . . except for the bill’s “millionaire clause”.
But there is mention of splitting the money into “primary” and “general” portions. If that’s all the bill says, of course, that could spell trouble for those candidates and parties state laws don’t allow into primaries. . . .
So, while I sympathize with Mr. Nyhart, and I hope this bill will turn out to help increase the influence of proper PACS — Politically Active Citizens — the devil will definitely be in the details. And not all of the details given or suggested here are encouraging to me.
If they wanted to do it right the fundraising requirement would be removed completely in favor of qualifying for the ballot–with qualifying being a function of the political parties, not signature requirements. It would also prevent all outside fundraising and make all the campaign funds public. It also needs a cap-and-return clause, that if the candidate runs out of cash, they’re done, and if they have any left, they return it. They also would have to be prohibited from using the public funds as a loan collateral as McCain did in 2008.
I know that isn’t very libertarian of me, but if they’re gonna do this, then for crying out loud, do it right, which means a completely level playing field for all candidates.
Mr. Winger,
(Received the latest issue of the Ballot Access News-letter in the mail the other day. Such valuable work. Thanks.)
I wonder if there is any honor to Independent Political Report in the following formula?:
1. You mix up Independent Political Report with Third Party Watch and
2. You mix up The New York Times with the Washington Post.
(Guess, when you mix up the NY Times with IPR is when we should start feeling honored…)
Fondly,
Kimberly Wilder
The ballot access process needs to be fixed more than than the money.
As Obama proved many will talk about being for public financing but when they realize they can raise much more money the old fashion way. They may not even be scrutinized at all like Obama. Remember they did not look into alleged violations because he did not take public money.
I am personally against any public funding in which the funds are not voluntarily given. I do believe that anyone should be forced to support any candidate.
In my past dealings with the FEC, they have considered getting on the November ballot as the break point for Independents and minor party candidates. For example in my case of running for the US House in PA, the petitioning was considered the “Primary” by the FEC and after the filing deadline (August 1)was considered to be part of the “General” election. That was the explanation I received from the FEC.
Fed cash = Fed controls
See the bailout machinations.
Obama raised tons of money from small individual donors. This dynamic is due to the information revolution. Campaign financial support was an easy click of a computer mouse. In light of this recent and developing trend – do we really need a federal program that gives tax dollars to campaigns?
Obama took more money from business than any candidate in history.
This idea stinks. Taxpayer funding of political candidates is a rotten idea.
Michael Seebeck hit the nail on the head. If a campaign has an organization capable of getting donations from 1,500 people, they don’t need public funds. If you do take public funds, you should be precluded from doing any other fundraising.
Maybe Arlen Specter is sponsoring this bill so he can be assured of funding when he has to run as an independent in 2010.
So you get $2300 from 16 persons, an average of $9 from 1484 other persons for a total of $50,000. And then the feds give you $900,000?
So you get the $2300 x 16 up front. You use that to spend $34 to get small donors to donate $9.
Bob: A quick look at the top of your income tax form will remind you that what you consider to be “a rotten idea” has been the law for many years now.
Has this bill passed the House and Senate? What is the Official Title of the Bill?
thnx
S. Harden