A Plea for Realism
Thomas E. Mann
In several respects I am absolutely delighted that Ellen Miller and her colleagues
have launched a national campaign to spread the recently approved Maine system
of voluntary full public financing of elections to other states. Efforts to
reform our campaign finance system have been frustrated in Washington for
years, while the states have begun to experiment in a number of interesting
and promising ways. If the authors are correct that citizens are much more
open to public financing than thought by national policy makers, what better
way to demonstrate that reality than by garnering the support of citizens
state by state for Maine-style financing.
It is also indisputably true that worrisome inequities are present in our
political system as a result of the way our campaigns are financed. One doesn't
have to endorse every element of their diagnosis and prescription to acknowledge
that Miller and her associates in Public Campaign are raising immensely important
questions about the health of our democracy. A full discussion and debate
about the appropriate role of public vs. private funds in our elections is
welcome although I am much less certain about the outcome of that debate than
the authors appear to be.
My doubts are based on a number of considerations. While it is not surprising
that reformers tend to exaggerate their claims about the impact of money in
politics in order to stoke public outrage, hyperbolic language has the unfortunate
side effect of raising public expectations sky high. For example, the authors
approvingly cite The Nation's rendition of how political contributions provide
a handsome return on investment for corporate American in the form of "direct
corporate welfare" from the Commerce Department. Call me a radical but am
I the only reader who thought: "Come on. AT&T, Boeing, and General Electric
would almost certainly have won the same benefits from Commerce without their
measly campaign contributions"? I have the same reaction to the endless stories
based on simple correlations between PAC contributions and votes in Congress.
Take away every PAC dollar and I bet few votes would change on the House and
Senate floors.
I am not arguing that private campaign contributions are ineffectual or that
serious problems of conflict of interest do not arise. We ought to be concerned
that monied interests are much more likely to attract the attention and energy
of members of Congress than ordinary constituents and that the policy agendas
of parties and officeholders are shaped by their constant scramble for campaign
funds. Officeholders are consumed with fundraising and their money chase does
have harmful affects on our democracy. But overheated rhetoric that politicians
are routinely bought and sold by special interests and that private campaign
money is the root of all evil in our democracy misleads citizens into expecting
that full public financing will lead to dramatic changes in governance and
policy. I think not. Inequalities in social and economic resources, even in
the absence of private campaign contributions, would continue to shape politics
and policymaking in America. It is as much a mistake for reformers to over-promise
as it is for politicians.
I worry also whether a system of full public financing would work outside
a friends-and-neighbors kind of state like Maine. It is difficult and expensive
for candidates, especially challengers, to reach a largely disinterested and
disengaged public. Would that same public stomach spending the large amounts
of tax dollars needed to broadcast a reasonable amount of information about
the competing candidates? And what happens when candidates limited to their
allotment of public funds are assaulted by forces operating outside the regulated
system, exploiting issue advocacy or independent spending loopholes? (The
response to the latter built into the Maine system, providing up to twice
the original amount of public funds given to candidates, seems woefully inadequate.)
And what role would political parties play in a system of full public financing
to candidates? Would they be rendered obsolete, further fueling the lone-ranger
perspective of politicians?
I suspect the idea of full public financing will not sit well in a country
whose political culture is as individualistic and anti-statist as ours. We
will likely insist on some serious test of popular support for candidates,
in the form of private fundraising, before they reap public campaign funds.
We probably also will want to retain private contributions as means of expressing
intensity and channeling social action that are hallmarks of our democracy.
But having a lively test of these propositions should be welcomed. Let Ellen
Miller and her colleagues press their case in states across the country.
As for me, I prefer to work on the here and now, on changes in law that would
address some of the most egregious flaws in our system, which in 1996 precipitated
a virtual collapse of the regulatory regime for campaign finance. That means
banning soft money, limiting the blatant political abuse of "issue advocacy,"
providing broadcast time to candidates, encouraging small contributions, and
strengthening disclosure and enforcement. These are achievable objectives
in the 105th Congress, if we spend some of our resources on the achievable.
home