As it becomes more apparent everyday that Jack Abramoff wielded more power over Congress than any lobbyist in recent history, politicians across the country have rushed to reassure the public that not all elected officials are crooks by proposing strict campaign finance laws.
One of the more ambitious plans has been presented by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. His proposal, to be presented this week, involves instituting public funding of all House elections and preventing House members from fundraising or self-financing their campaigns. In effect, when running a campaign, candidates would only be allowed to spend however much money the state gives them.
At first glance, public funding appears to solve many of the problems so prevalent in the halls of Congress. If politicians wouldn't have to spend so much time raising money for their re-election, they would have more time to actually assess policy presented to them. Public funding would also reduce the influence of lobbyists over members of Congress, so politicians could finally vote their conscience without fear of reprisal from an interest group that disproportionately benefits only a small number of Americans.
The problem with having powerful lobbyists in Washington extends beyond Abramoff-style petty corruption. For instance, a majority of the public supports some measure of gun control. However, prominent national Democrats have been reluctant to take a firm stand against guns because the NRA has become one of the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington. After all, they do have Moses on their side.
Despite the benefits of public funding, I tend not to fashion myself after 16th-century Italians; the end does not justify the means. There are several glaring problems that are inherently present in public financing.
Some of the measures involved in Rep. Obey's proposal are wildly unconstitutional. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which included contribution as well as spending limitations. Several free-speech issues subsequently came into play, and the law's constitutionality was challenged in Buckley v. Valeo.
The Supreme Court upheld contribution limitations, arguing "to the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined." Contribution limitations are acceptable because they prevent the appearance of corruption.
However, the court struck down the spending limits because no outside group could buy influence if an individual donates money to his or her own campaign.
Aside from the constitutional issues the current legislation faces, the specific provisions of the bill appear to be deeply flawed. Public financing is supposed to make elections more competitive. The House incumbency advantage is exceptionally large; politicians running for re-election have money, resources and staff at their disposal that handicaps the race right off the bat. And since House races are not nearly as scrutinized as senatorial, gubernatorial or presidential contests, voters usually are not presented with evidence convincing them to throw the bums out of office.
Under Rep. Obey's legislation, the amount of money a politician receives is proportional to how well their party performed in the previous two elections, doing little to help the challenger. Take California's 50th congressional seat, which is currently occupied by Randy Cunningham, the poster boy for corruption. Cunningham walked away with an average of 62 percent of the vote over the last two elections, while his Democrat challengers garnered an average of 35 percent. Under public funding, the Democrat in 2006 would only receive 35 percent of the money allocated to the district, even though he or she would almost certainly be able to raise far more private money.
Another issue with public financing is that the amount of money any district would receive relies on the district's median family income. The rich kids would get about $1.5 million, while the poorest districts in America would only receive half of that. One could easily argue that less fortunate districts should receive more money.
The proposed system also would only apply to general elections and not primaries. If a House member comes from a highly homogeneous district (where a large majority of the electorate is Republican, for example), his or her only fear of defeat would come from a primary challenge, where the system would remain unchanged. They would still raise funds themselves.
And, finally, as a highly partisan hack, I do not want one cent of my tax dollars going to fund a Republican seeking office. I can deal with my tax dollars going to war, faith-based initiatives and President Bush's salary, but I will raise more hell than Pat Robertson at a NARAL meeting if my money funds a conservative whose platform consists of denying homosexuals rights, spying on Americans and drilling for oil in ANWR.
Rob Hunger ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
