Tallahassee – The time is right to implement the public funding of congressional
campaigns, thereby making Congress more accountable to voters,
according to a report released today by a coalition of public interest
groups.
The groups – the Brennan Center for Justice, Common
Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG
– are championing the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act for full
funding of elections recently introduced in the U.S. Senate by
Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Arlen
Specter (R-Pa.) and pointing to successful similar systems in Maine and
Arizona for statewide and legislative elections as models for how a
national system could work and the benefits it would produce.
“Fair Elections – systems with full public financing of elections –
would help improve the openness, honesty, and accountability of
government,” the report states. “They would also free public officials
to respond to the interests of voters without worrying about hurting
their ability to raise money from deep-pocketed donors.”
The
cost of congressional campaigns has skyrocketed, from an average of
about $87,000 spent for successful House elections in 1976 (about
$308,000 in 2006 dollars) to an average of $1.3 million spent on
winning campaigns in 2006. Successful Senate candidates in 1976 spent
an average of $609,000 (about $2.2 million in 2006 dollars), and in
2006, the average Senate winner spent an astonishing $9.6 million.
Starting the day after they are elected, House members must begin
raising more than $1,000 a day to amass large enough war chests to wage
their next campaign, while senators must raise more than $3,000 per
day. A system of public funding would end the money race and allow
elected representatives to focus on doing the people’s work rather than
fundraising. It would encourage a more diverse pool of candidates to
run, including ordinary citizens who are currently shut out because of
the prohibitively high cost of elections. Ultimately, it would make
elections contests of ideas rather than dollars.
The report
highlights the six pillars of Fair Elections systems: 1) Candidates
seeking public funding collect “seed money” to initiate the campaign;
2) they then collect a set number of qualifying contributions in small
amounts, such as $5, to show they have significant public support; 3)
candidates who qualify agree to abide by spending limits and not to
accept additional contributions or spend personal money on campaigns;
4) the systems are voluntary; 5) participating candidates comply with
simple rules about how the money is spent, including accounting for all
expenditures; and 6) participating candidates receive “Fair Fight”
funds up to a predetermined limit if a non-participating opponent or
third party outspends them.
The cost of a full congressional
Fair Elections system is less than one twenty-fifth of one percent
(0.04 percent) of President Bush’s proposed 2008 budget, which totals
almost $3 trillion. It would be a bargain for the American taxpayer,
accruing enormous savings by reducing wasteful expenditures such as
earmarks arranged by lobbyists. These earmarks totaled $64 billion in
2006 alone and included wasted money on pet projects such as the
infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska and Teapot Museum in North
Carolina.
The systems in place in Maine and Arizona are
extremely popular with both voters and candidates, and other states
such as Maryland are considering implementing public funding for state
elections. The report also points to 2006 national polling data showing
that Democratic, Republican and independent voters all support a Fair
Elections system for congressional races. Nearly 75 percent of
respondents – including 80 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of
Republicans – said that they support a voluntary public funding system.
In the same year, public approval of Congress plunged to
historic depths. The spectacle of members of Congress being indicted
and put behind bars as a result of widening lobbying scandals was
enough to shake public confidence in the current system and result in
the first change in leadership in both houses in more than a decade.
Energized voters elected 109 candidates, including 21 newly elected
members of Congress, who either signed a Voters First pledge to
publicly fund congressional elections or were co-sponsors of a federal
bill to that effect in previous congressional sessions.
Recent
lobbying and ethics reform bills passed in the new House and Senate
will go a long way toward limiting the influence of lobbyists and
making lawmakers more accountable. Nonetheless, the only way to end the
corporate kickbacks and indebtedness to large campaign donors is to
provide an alternative to the current money chase by implementing
public funding for elections.
“A congressional Fair
Elections system would be an investment in a more responsive and
independent Congress,” concludes the report.
