Get Herald RSSGetting elected isn't easy. It costs upward of $1 million today to run a successful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives. It costs some $5 million to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. To raise that kind of money, a candidate who isn't personally wealthy must be willing to solicit contributions from wealthy "friends" who may or may not have the same set of interests as the candidate's constituents.
This part of the system doesn't sit right with me. And even if you're not convinced that the "appearance of impropriety" in receiving private donations is enough of a reason to change anything, there are other problems with how campaigns are financed.
For one, it is pretty clear that campaign contributions buy some measure of access to the winning candidate. The question of whether these contributions ever "buy" votes is murkier, but the only debate is over the degree of their influence, not that the influence exists. In addition, under the current campaign financing system, a large number of people who are qualified candidates lack the access to these funding sources. These are not features of a true representative democracy - in my opinion, they would hardly qualify the United States for "republic" status.
Some would-be reformers have been stymied by a perception that significant change is unrealistic and/or hopeless. They point to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 and the subsequent rise of 527s like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org as proof that reform only changes the pressure points on a hopelessly unbalanced system. And still others worry about the First Amendment repercussions of such reform: After all, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that campaign expenditures were a legitimate form of free speech, and that candidates could thus not be forced to submit to spending limits.
Yet perhaps the best solution to this problem is right under our noses. Why not create a system of full public campaign financing, or "Clean Elections" a voluntary system in which candidates have the choice to run as either Clean Elections candidates or privately-financed candidates? This isn't a pipe dream: Maine and Arizona are already on board the full public financing train, and Arizona recently elected the first Clean Elections governor.
Instead of lowering the ceiling for campaign spending, let's raise the floor. That's not to say that we should build a system in which there are hundreds of candidates for every public office, many of whom may be wholly unqualified. In full public financing systems like in Maine and Arizona, filters exist in the process of applying for public funds such as requiring Clean Elections candidates to demonstrate their credibility through the collection of signatures and small donations of $5. Once candidates prove they are viable, they receive a full grant to run their race - no fundraising necessary.
In both of the states' systems, candidates retain the option to run privately-financed campaigns, but Clean Elections candidates are eligible to receive matching funds if they are outspent by privately financed opponents. This system was passed by voter initiative in both Arizona and Maine, but it has gained the support of legislators as well - in Maine, more than 75 percent of candidates have decided to run as Clean Elections candidates. Nobody's rights are infringed, as they might be by spending limits they are only expanded.
Full public financing of elections would promote diversity in government and make politicians more directly accountable to voters. Brown undergraduate Rob Sand '05.5 eloquently argues in his thesis "Investing in Democracy" that several existing public financing systems "… have broadened public participation in the electoral process through higher voter turnout and an increase in grassroots candidates with stronger connections to their constituents." Imagine the power of these kinds of changes on a national level.
Full public financing of elections would be a tremendous step in a continuous trend toward true representative democracy in the United States following the elimination of land requirements for voting and the elimination of the infamous "poll tax" and "literacy tests" used to prohibit African Americans from voting. Things like the ability to run for office and having access to one's representative should not be controlled by income.
This past spring, with the support of various community groups and elected officials including state Rep. Edith Ajello and Sen. Rhoda Perry, the student group Democracy Matters introduced the Clean Elections Act to the Rhode Island General Assembly. This bill is a major step forward in leveling the political playing field.
Rhode Island should join Arizona and Maine and make full public campaign financing of elections a reality. Hopefully the rest of the country will follow suit.
Ben Logan '07 wants you to come to Wilson 102 at 8 p.m. tonight and visit www.cleanelectionsRI.org to learn more.
is a member of the 
