National Publications Endorse Public Funding
Political journalists routinely uncover the problems created by the trading of money and influence in our highest levels of government. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that many major publications have endorsed public funding as a solution to the serious problems facing our most important democratic institutions. In just the past couple of weeks, editorials by the National Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today, and the Philadelphia Inquirer have made strong arguments for public funding.
Links and excerpts of each editorial are below. To read past editorials calling for public funding, view our archives.
USA Today questioned why congressional leadership was outraged about an accidentally leaked document but not the actual contents of the document, which showed that a significant number of Representatives are under ethics investigation for trading earmarks for campaign contributions from defense contractors.
Even if lawmakers don't get it, the public does. According to a Rasmussen poll this year, 62% of voters think a member of Congress can be influenced by a contribution of $50,000 or less, and 14% think all it takes is a paltry $1,000.
...
At the root of this problem is the system for financing elections. Lawmakers need vast amounts of money to run campaigns; lobbyists and corporate interests have the funds to give.
The simplest way to break the cycle? Public financing of campaigns. Seven states give candidates for some offices the option to reject private financing and accept fixed amounts of public money. A similar proposal for Congress has the support of more than 110 lawmakers, but it's an uphill fight.
What opponents fail to acknowledge is that the current system is untenable. When lawmakers spend huge amounts of time and energy raising money, and more than half the public thinks members of Congress can be bought, it's past time to get special interest money out of elections. If lawmakers no longer feel indebted to big donors, taxpayers are likely to come out ahead.
The National Journal (subscription required) looks at possible responses to a broad and/or disastrous Citizens United ruling, and the first solution they suggest is public financing:
One way to counter increased corporate sway in elections is to boost the influence of small donors. But not even Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, a founder of the advocacy group Change Congress and a leading voice on how the Internet can foster small-donor participation, believes that small donations alone can effectively check heightened corporate spending. That's why Lessig and many other reformers believe that the key to increasing the impact of small donations is a public financing system for congressional races.
...
The idea appears to have gained some momentum in the House since its introduction in the last Congress, where it had fewer than 60 co-sponsors. Now, by picking up new supporters as recently as last month, it has more than 100, including two Republicans. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., who introduced the bill, says that bipartisan support will grow among GOP pockets of small donors, such as evangelicals, and Ron Paul-style libertarians. The measure's popularity in the Senate, though, remains in doubt.
The Philadelphia Inquirer also wrote about Citizens United vs. FEC, and called on Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) to vote the Fair Elections Now Act out of the House Administration Committee, which he chairs.
Rescinding these sensible limits on campaign donations would escalate a campaign fund-raising race that already consumes too much of candidates' time. But if the Supreme Court unwisely decides to erase established law, there is another potential solution awaiting in Congress.
The Fair Elections Now Act would create a voluntary system of campaign finance in which candidates could accept a mix of small donations of up to $100, and matching public funds. Similar systems have worked well in state elections in Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut. New Jersey experimented with a pilot program in 2007.
A House bill has 114 cosponsors, and was the subject of a July hearing in the House Administration Committee chaired by Rep. Bob Brady (D., Pa.) The committee hasn't voted on it, but if the court decides to undermine election fairness, Brady should advance this bill. The alternative is an undemocratic arms race that would trample the voices of ordinary citizens.
Last and certainly not least, the San Francisco Chronicle profiles Citizens United and the vast amounts of money being spent to influence the future of our healthcare system and concludes that we need public funding:
Americans already have all the evidence they need that the current system is broken: from Washington's decades of avoidance of an energy policy that would break our dependence on foreign oil to the industry-crafted deregulation measures of the 1990s that contributed to a near-meltdown of the financial system.
We can understand some taxpayers' wariness about funding political campaigns. Just remember: Americans are paying a high price for allowing special interests to fund our elections.