Empower Citizens

Zach Polett

On the same day that 313,581 Maine voters were passing the Maine Clean Elections Act by a 56% to 44% margin, 487,432 Arkansas voters were passing the Arkansas Clean Government Act by nearly double that margin--66% to 34%--a greater margin, in fact, than that by which they supported native son Bill Clinton's re-election as president.

We at ACORN applaud the work of our sisters and brothers in New England in passing what we agree is signicant campaign finance reform in Maine. But we are surprised that they neglect the innovative tax credit public financing reform measure passed in Arkansas that we believe also serves as a valuable model for serious reform measures in the years to come, either in combination with a state-run "Clean Money Elections Fund" or by itself.

The Arkansas initiative does the following:

1. Contribution Limits: Reduces the $1000 contribution limit per candidate per election to $300 for statewide office and $100 for other offices.
2. Tax Credit Public Financing: Provides public financing by allowing a 100% annual tax credit of $50 for individuals and $100 for married couples for contributions to a candidate committee, a political party or a political committee.
3. Small-Donor PACs: Sets up a new class of committees that may receive no more than $25 from any contributor but may contribute up to $2500 to a candidate.
4. Independent Expenditure Committees: Requires disclosure of the contributions they receive and limits these contributions to $500.
5. Disclosure: Tightens disclosure requirements to $50 for candidates and for the first time in Arkansas requires disclosure of contributions to political parties.
6. Local Government: Allows local governments to enact their own stricter campaign finance laws.

In the first few months since the passage of the Arkansas Clean Government Act, we have already seen results. Republican Governor Mike Huckabee had to cut back his December gala $1000 per plate fundraiser down to the new $300 limit. Candidates who played under the new rules in a January 1997 special legislative election reported in the local press that they spent much more time in door-to-door campaigning because "the new rule lessens lobbyist influence and makes the process more accessible to average people." And the City of Little Rock has introduced and is likely to pass a New Party-sponsored ordinance, made possible by the new state law, that severely restricts when city council members can fundraise, helping to reduce conflicts of interest.

Need for Accountability. As the campaign finance reform community moves forward in its efforts to fundamentally change the financing system of American politics, we think it's important to develop a system that encourages and empowers the participation of organized everyday voters in the process--and through this the accountability of candidates and politicians to organized groups of voters. We believe that politics in America is already too candidate-centered, as opposed to being issues- and values-centered. We definitely want a system that decreases the dependence of politicians on wealthy individuals and well-financed corporate interests, but not by strengthening the power of politicians and weakening organized groups of "regular" voters.

As we often say in the campaign finance reform movement, "follow the money." We are concerned that if we create a public financing system that provides all the money to politicians and none to organized groups of citizens, then we will inadvertently create a system that encourages candidates and elected officials to be even less accountable than they are now. By getting all the legal political money "magically," that is straight from the government, they will have the funds to speak more and listen less.

Ross Perot provides an instructive example. He has the political money "magically"--in his case first through his own wealth and then through the presidential public financing funds he received for the 1996 general election. Thus he doesn't need to be accountable to any organized groups of voters--and he isn't.

If public funding goes only to candidates--and all other money is kept out of the process--then candidates will be greatly empowered vis-á-vis voters. We're not convinced that this is such a good thing.

As we change the campaign finance system in America, we want to change who the politicians have to listen to, but we don't want to make them independent actors who don't need to listen to anyone--except the pollsters. Therefore, as we develop public funding mechanisms for political campaigns, we need to make sure that all the cash doesn't go directly to candidates.

Tax Credits as a Public Financing Tool. The Arkansas initiative uses tax credits as its public financing tool. The way it works is that every Arkansan effectively has $50 of political public financing dollars from the state government ($100 for a married couple) that s/he can allocate as s/he deems fit. Individuals can direct their piece of public financing to a candidate, to a political party, or to a political committee. Voters can send it all to one, or divide it up any way they choose. They can invest their piece of public financing in a candidate's campaign or in a political group with which they agree. They can even decide not to invest it at all--in which case the state, not the individual, keeps the money.

The mechanism for this contribution is that individuals make the contribution or contributions and then get the funds back from the state as a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their state income tax bill or as an addition to their annual state income tax refund.

Candidates, parties, and organized groups (political committees) will thus compete with each other for these public funds, by working to convince voters that they should direct their share of public financing in that candidate's or group's direction. All Arkansans will be equal in this process, since all will have the same $50 to allocate. And non-Arkansans will not be able to make an allocation since they are not Arkansas taxpayers.

Small Donor Political Action Committees. The Arkansas initiative sets up and defines a new kind of political action committee called a "small-donor political action committee." These committees are restricted to accepting small contributions of no more than $25 from individuals. Thus they are nearly equally accessible to "lean cats" as they are to "fat cats"--and the fat cats' contributions need to be pretty lean, no more than $25.

What makes the small-donor PAC particularly effective as a campaign finance reform tool is its combination with the contribution limits of the initiative. Under the initiative, regular PACs and individuals can contribute no more than $100 per election to a candidate (or $300 for a statewide race) while small-donor PACs are allowed to contribute up to $2500. Thus small-donor PACs empower small donors while decreasing the power of traditional, large-donor PACs. They also have the advantage of putting more money into the system, thus answering one of the objections raised to relatively low contribution limits.

Reality Check. Let's be real. The rich and powerful, both corporations and individuals, will always have more political influence than the rest of us, and especially than those of us who are poor. Money talks. The Maine and Arkansas initiatives, for example, don't restrict private money expenditures by, or contributions to, independent expenditure campaigns or political parties. No campaign finance reform law can ever totally level the playing field--not Maine, not Arkansas, not a constitutional amendment. But we don't need to oversell the reforms we're promoting. The current system is broken and everyone knows it. The best we can do is to change the rules of the game in ways that help empower voters and promote candidate accountability, while decreasing somewhat the over-riding influence of wealthy contributors.

The authors are on target when they state that "the scandal is what is legal, not what's illegal," but they miss an important part of the picture when they write "the problem is private money financing our public elections." The problem is not the private money per se, but the vast inequality of who has this private money--primarily large corporations and wealthy individuals.

As the campaign finance reform community evaluates strategy for the next several years, we think that it should look seriously in a number of states at strategies, like those enacted by Arkansas voters in 1996, that are designed to increase and empower organized groups of everyday voters. Tax credit public financing and small-donor political action committees are two important tools to keep in our arsenal.

---