Voters decide elections. In a perfect world voters would decide who funds campaigns. Alas, the District is not perfect and voters cannot prevent moneyed interests from influencing politics. Our elected officials, however, have the power to level the playing field by implementing a system of publicly funded campaigns.
Last week, activists Sylvia Brown and Bryan Weaver launched an initiative to rid District campaigns of corporate money. If Brown and Weaver clear a series of legal hurdles and collect 22,500 signatures from registered voters, the question will be on the ballot in November.
Some critics say the aim of the project, dubbed the Committee to Restore Public Trust, does not go far enough. Political Action Committees and unions are not addressed in the measure. Other skeptics are concerned that the landmark Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which prohibits the government from limiting independent political spending by corporations and unions, will allow businesses and other deep pocket players to bypass District laws.
That isn’t to say the initiative is without merit. A number of recent news and editorial pieces have detailed the extent to which some District campaigns --almost exclusively those of incumbents-- are benefiting from corporate funding. In many instances contributions are arriving to campaigns via a loophole that allows businesses to bundle multiple checks amounting to totals far in excess of legal limits.
So, while the initiative is heading in the right direction, nonetheless it comes up short.
A better solution is publicly funded campaigns. New York City has developed a program that has been very successful. In short, the system awards funds for every dollar a candidate raises; contributions are matched at a 6-to-1 ratio. If you give $100 to a campaign, the city kicks in another $600.
Candidates are limited in overall spending, individual contributions are capped and money from businesses, PACs, unions and other entities is prohibited. Very strict accounting and transparency rules are imposed on campaigns.
The system creates a level playing field on which grassroots candidates are able to compete against incumbents and other campaigns with access to big bucks.
Of course, publicly funded campaigns are not free. Proponents argue that tax dollars spent on campaigns are a good investment. They say that elected officials not beholden to corporate and deep pocket interests are better stewards of our money and less likely to be involved in pay-to-play scandals.
Whether or not that would be true in the District is anybody’s guess. What is certain, however, is the impact publicly funded campaigns would have on our elections and elected officials. Incumbents put to the test by an equally financed opponent would be answering more questions and answerable to more voters.
Across America there are many models for financing campaigns with public money. The Mayor and the Council should set the interests of incumbents aside and embark on a serious exploration of which one is best for District residents.
Chuck Thies co-hosts the "D.C. Politics" show Thursday mornings at 11:00 am on WPFW 89.3 FM, streaming online at wpfw.org. You can follow him on twitter @chuckthies
1 Comment For This Article
I don't know about public funding for elections, but what DC needs is a public bank! http://publicbankinginstitute.org/state-info.htm