It is generally accepted that money makes politicians, that elected officials are beholden to their big donors and fundraisers. There are plenty of books available that demonstrate this syndrome by tracking legislation to donations (I personally recommend Is That a Politician in Your Pocket: Washington on $2 Million a Day by Micah Sifry).It is also generally accepted that practically nothing can be done about it. Oh, there are exceptions - New York City's mayor, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, financed both of his campaigns out of his own pocket. But there aren't a whole lot of billionaires running for office these days, and the rest of the candidates spend an awful lot of time raising money for their campaigns.
But there is something that can be done.
Currently, almost all versions of public financing of elections involve matching funds. First, a candidate has to raise a lot of money, and then the taxpayers kick in a lot more. This system still requires the inordinate amount of fundraising that inevitably corrupts almost all of our politicians. Clearly, we need another system. Fortunately, several good government groups are pushing a new system that eliminates the need for fundraising.
It is best known as the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" (CMCE) campaign.
The mechanics of this system are simple. Rather than raising money, a candidate who signs up for this system can qualify for a fixed amount of public financing, in return for which the candidate may only spend that money - no fundraising allowed. Qualifying is a straightforward process; a candidate must convince enough constituents to sign a petition and write a check for five dollars.
Once a candidate submits enough petitions and checks to qualify (the checks are written to the officiating board of elections, not the candidate), the public financing is deposited into the candidate's bank account. And that's it! Now the candidate can spend all his or her time campaigning. And whoever gets elected has no big donors asking for favors.
What if a candidate faces an opponent who chooses to raise money or finance a campaign from a personal fortune? Simple. Anyone opting out of the system must report all campaign expenses within twenty-four hours. Once that person exceeds the amount given the CMCE candidate, additional matching funds are deposited directly into the "clean" candidate's bank account, up to a stop limit. In other words, it's a lot harder to opt out, since very few people will have an advantage, and it's a lot more work reporting every little expense every day.
"It's a great idea, but it will never happen." That's the reaction most people have when faced with the CMCE plan. Oh, how untrue! The system is already in place in Maine and Arizona, and has been passed in Connecticut. And several other states are seriously considering it.
The results from the states that utilize this system are fascinating.
First, elected officials no longer spend most of their time appeasing huge donors and fundraisers - or raising money for their re-election. Legislation that would have been written specifically to favor these special interests is no longer necessary.
Second, more people are running for office. Since nobody has to spend months, or even years, raising money for a campaign, and nobody has to spend the necessary time (usually years) cultivating large donors and fundraisers, just about anybody with links to their community can run for office. The result is that the voters get more choices - and since in most elections under the current system there is only one viable candidate running, this means many voters are getting a real choice for the first time.
Third, many of these new candidates are women and minorities. The reason is simple - white men still generally have the greatest access to money. For this reason, women and minorities are more likely to be shut out. The result of CMCE, that a candidate doesn't need access to money, just community links, means that far more women and minorities can be viable candidates.
Fourth, elections are no longer determined (as most are under the current system) by who raises the most money. Since all the candidates have the same amount of money to spend, the level playing field means that the winner will be the one who truly has the best combination of experience, ability, message and strategy. It may not be perfect (seriously, what is?), but it's far better than the current system.
This system is a new paradigm in campaign financing, and it will take years to catch on. The vast majority of elected officials have a huge advantage in fundraising, and they will not quickly surrender that advantage. There are a few people with big names behind this idea, however, and with the upsurge of grass roots political organizations, the word will get out. Eventually, enough states will switch to the CMCE system that those states left behind will lose out.
By then, the moneyed interests may come up with a new way to influence (dare I say "bribe"?) elected officials, but then again - maybe not.
Copyright 2006, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu