thedrifter
01-23-07, 07:39 AM
Hillary Takes a Pass
How campaign finance spending limits help the rich and famous.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Congratulations to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for acknowledging right from the start that she won't accept public money for her White House bid. Now if she'd only admit how much the current fund-raising rules hurt her competitors.
Top-tier or wealthy candidates have been forgoing public financing for the Presidential primaries for some time because it limits their spending ability. Steve Forbes shunned it in 1996, as did he and George W. Bush in 2000. Howard Dean, John Kerry and President Bush all refused public funds in the 2004 primaries. But now Senator Clinton says that if she wins the Democratic nomination, she will be the first to forgo taxpayer funding in the general election as well.
Congress enacted a public financing law for Presidential candidates beginning with the 1976 election. Taxpayers fund the system by checking off a box on their income tax form. In return for receiving public funds--which are expected to total around $84 million in 2008--a candidate agrees to limit private-fund raising and overall campaign spending. The claim, then and since, has been that this will limit the influence of special interests and make Presidential contests more competitive.
The reality is close to the opposite. The system now benefits mainly well-known and well-heeled candidates and thus limits political competition. Serious Presidential contenders like Senator John McCain and Mrs. Clinton begin the race with greater name recognition, long donor lists and the ability to garner far more media attention.
Their lesser-known challengers have to claw for every $2,000 individual contribution, and then they are limited in how much they can spend. Long gone are the days when a few rich backers could elevate an unknown with a cause--antiwar Eugene McCarthy in 1968--by writing big checks. Instead, you have to be a gazillionaire yourself, or be a famous Senator or have a last name of Bush or Clinton. One irony of the 2008 race is that popular former Governors such as Tom Vilsack and Mike Huckabee probably can't raise enough cash to be competitive, but New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg might be able to make waves next year as an Independent because he's a multibillionaire.
As for special interests, those handful of rich donors in the past could at least be identified and their interests put on the record. Now the candidates have to bow to interest-group lobbies that can "bundle" contributions (trial lawyers) or provide in-kind support. Does anyone really believe that John Kerry's decision to accept public funds in the 2004 general election made him immune to the pleadings of Big Labor, the trial bar and other liberal groups? Or that Mrs. Clinton's decision to spurn public financing will make her any less accountable to voters if she wins?
Speaking of which, the public these days doesn't think much of the current election financing scheme. Fewer than 10% of taxpayers want a portion of their tax dollars siphoned off for political purposes. Perhaps voters are more sophisticated than campaign-finance "reformers" give them credit for being. Or perhaps taxpayers understand that limiting the pool of candidates competing for the most powerful job in the world is a really bad idea.
Ellie
How campaign finance spending limits help the rich and famous.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Congratulations to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for acknowledging right from the start that she won't accept public money for her White House bid. Now if she'd only admit how much the current fund-raising rules hurt her competitors.
Top-tier or wealthy candidates have been forgoing public financing for the Presidential primaries for some time because it limits their spending ability. Steve Forbes shunned it in 1996, as did he and George W. Bush in 2000. Howard Dean, John Kerry and President Bush all refused public funds in the 2004 primaries. But now Senator Clinton says that if she wins the Democratic nomination, she will be the first to forgo taxpayer funding in the general election as well.
Congress enacted a public financing law for Presidential candidates beginning with the 1976 election. Taxpayers fund the system by checking off a box on their income tax form. In return for receiving public funds--which are expected to total around $84 million in 2008--a candidate agrees to limit private-fund raising and overall campaign spending. The claim, then and since, has been that this will limit the influence of special interests and make Presidential contests more competitive.
The reality is close to the opposite. The system now benefits mainly well-known and well-heeled candidates and thus limits political competition. Serious Presidential contenders like Senator John McCain and Mrs. Clinton begin the race with greater name recognition, long donor lists and the ability to garner far more media attention.
Their lesser-known challengers have to claw for every $2,000 individual contribution, and then they are limited in how much they can spend. Long gone are the days when a few rich backers could elevate an unknown with a cause--antiwar Eugene McCarthy in 1968--by writing big checks. Instead, you have to be a gazillionaire yourself, or be a famous Senator or have a last name of Bush or Clinton. One irony of the 2008 race is that popular former Governors such as Tom Vilsack and Mike Huckabee probably can't raise enough cash to be competitive, but New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg might be able to make waves next year as an Independent because he's a multibillionaire.
As for special interests, those handful of rich donors in the past could at least be identified and their interests put on the record. Now the candidates have to bow to interest-group lobbies that can "bundle" contributions (trial lawyers) or provide in-kind support. Does anyone really believe that John Kerry's decision to accept public funds in the 2004 general election made him immune to the pleadings of Big Labor, the trial bar and other liberal groups? Or that Mrs. Clinton's decision to spurn public financing will make her any less accountable to voters if she wins?
Speaking of which, the public these days doesn't think much of the current election financing scheme. Fewer than 10% of taxpayers want a portion of their tax dollars siphoned off for political purposes. Perhaps voters are more sophisticated than campaign-finance "reformers" give them credit for being. Or perhaps taxpayers understand that limiting the pool of candidates competing for the most powerful job in the world is a really bad idea.
Ellie