Get Herald RSSThe New York Times reported last week that despite efforts to cut pork barrel spending, "House lawmakers still tacked on to the military appropriations bill $1.8 billion to pay 580 private companies for projects the Pentagon did not request." Meanwhile, presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani continue to waltz around the country, trying to raise the enormous amounts of money necessary to remain competitive in next year's presidential race.
Candidates are winning elections and lining the pockets of private contractors at the expense of the American people. Our political system needs help.
Of course, the influence of money in politics is nothing new. Calculated fundraising and lucrative paybacks, often in the form of earmarks, have been part of our political system for many years. Private financing of elections infects our electoral process from start to finish. Money determines which candidates can enter a race in the first place. After Election Day, conflicts of interest arise when an elected official is forced to choose between policies that will benefit his constituents and policies that will benefit the donors who helped him into office and who can offer the same monetary support when the next election cycle rolls around. Americans are aware of these problems, and the resulting disillusionment may be one of the reasons that voter turnout is depressingly low year after year.
It doesn't have to be this way. A movement for Fair Elections - a voluntary full public financing system in which candidates who refuse private donations can receive a stipend from the government to run their campaign - is gaining strength around the country. Fair Elections (also known as Clean Elections) has already been implemented on the state level in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut with tremendous and inspiring results. In both Maine and Arizona, the number of competitive races - races in which more than one candidate has a reasonable chance of winning - and voter turnout have both increased dramatically. With more candidates seeking office and more citizens heading to the polls, Fair Elections has shown itself to be an effective antidote for some of the more worrisome problems plaguing our democracy.
The Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Penn., would establish a similar system on the national level for U.S. Senate races. A candidate who volunteers to opt into the system and refuse private donations would first collect a specified number of qualifying $5 contributions in order to establish herself as a viable candidate. She would then receive a sum of public of money, determined by state population and number of congressional districts, to run her campaign. If a publicly funded candidate faces a privately funded opponent and the privately funded candidate's raised funds exceed the publicly funded candidate's grant, the publicly funded candidate can receive matching funds, up to 200 percent of the initial allocation.
Public financing is good for candidates in several ways. Candidates can spend more time talking to constituents instead of wining and dining a small minority of wealthy donors. Publicly funded candidates are also more appealing to voters because after being elected, they don't face the conflicts of interest that result from dual loyalties to big money campaign donors and the general voting public. In states where Fair Elections is already in place, candidates recognize these advantages and many choose to participate. In Maine, 81 percent of all candidates for state office ran public campaigns in 2006. This impressive figure suggests that after several election cycles, candidate participation in a national Fair Elections system could exceed 50 percent.
Supporters of public financing know the Fair Elections system isn't free. The total cost of campaign grants is estimated to be $6 per citizen per year, and ultimately this money comes from taxpayer dollars. Fortunately, the price goes down as more and more candidates opt into the system and less money is needed to match the funds of private candidates. Even in the early stages, however, the price of Fair Elections is worth paying. Elected officials who are accountable only to their constituents, not wealthy donors, will be in a better place to make decisions about policy and allocation of government funds. In Arizona, Fair Elections-elected Gov. Janet Napolitano said recent heathcare legislation that increased access to prescription drugs would not have been possible before Fair Elections removed pharmaceutical companies' influence over campaigns. Good government is a good investment.
This week is the Fair Elections Now Act week of action. Democracy Matters invites you to visit us on the Main Green and write a letter to your senator in support of this important legislation. Our system is sick, but that doesn't mean we can't heal it.
Rachel Forman '09 and Colin Lentz '09 will dance for democracy.
