Ensuring Fair Presidential Campaigns
For a quarter century, candidates have used public funds to run for president, rather than relying on big donors to foot the bill. But now that system is breaking down.
- In 2000 George W. Bush, having raised $100 million, decided not to take public financing for his primary campaign, though he did use the funds for the general election.
- In 2004 President Bush again turned down the public funds for the primaries, as did Democratic candidates Howard Dean and John Kerry.
- Only 11 percent of taxpayers earmarked funds for presidential campaigns on their tax returns in 2003, down from 29 percent in 1980.
In May of 2004, CBS News reported that the presidential campaign “is being bankrolled largely by private sources, which could render the public financing system all but impotent.”
What’s at stake
The public financing system, created after the Watergate scandals of the mid-1970s, was meant to rein in the influence of big money on presidential politics while expanding citizen participation. The law set limits on what wealthy individuals could donate and matched small donations to encourage more people to contribute. Candidates who agreed to limit spending could draw on substantial public funds for both primaries and the general election. That financing enabled them to spend their time debating issues, meeting voters, and laying out their plans for leadership, rather than chasing money.
Those reforms worked for a quarter century. Sixty-four candidates (45 Democrats, 29 Republicans) have taken advantage of public funding to run for president; three Republicans and two Democrats have used it to win election.
But the system is breaking down. Total fundraising continues to soar. In 2004, presidential candidates had receipts of $880.5 million, 60 percent more than the $528.9 million raised in 2000. Big money could overwhelm our presidential politics once again, limiting who can run for president and strongly influencing who wins. As the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute put it, “unless the system is changed, the presidential nominating process overwhelmingly will come to favor candidates who can afford to pass up public money and thus avoid spending limits. Competition will be reduced and the range of viable candidates in each party will be truncated.”
Why it’s not working
Candidates, political scientists and reformers identify several problems.
- Spending limits are too low and inflexible for today’s primary
campaigns.
Candidates must wait until January of election year to get public funds, and they must accept spending limits, which for 2004 were $45 million for primary campaigns. Those rules worked when campaigns started later and primaries continued through the first half of election year, giving candidates time to travel the country and make their message heard. Now most primaries take place and most delegates are selected by the end of March. The first quarter of election year is a furious competition moving Tuesday by Tuesday from one state to another. Because they cannot spend much time in any one place — and because they get less news coverage than they used to — candidates must create a presence by television advertising. Winning is extremely expensive: George W. Bush, without spending limits, spent $100 million to nail down his party’s nomination in 2000. Candidates who do win are virtually bankrupt — and vulnerable — between the end of the primaries and the summer conventions, unless they are able to raise and spend substantial funds during that period. - Matching fund rules for private contributions are out of date.
The old system limited individual contributions to $1,000, matched dollar-for-dollar donations up to $250, and set a cap on the amount of public matching funds going to individual candidates. Those rules haven’t been revised to account for inflation, or to adjust to the revised individual contribution limits (now $2,000) in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. - The public fund is running out of money.
Fewer taxpayers check the box on their income tax forms to earmark money for public financing, and the checkoff amounts ($3 for an individual and $6 for a joint return) haven’t kept pace with inflation. The Campaign Finance Institute estimates that, if both parties have contested primaries in 2008 and all candidates accept public funds, the fund could be $20 million in the red by the end of 2008. It would find itself unable to provide matching funds to candidates until 2009 — a year after the primary season.
Congress can act to make public funds — rather than private interests — the centerpiece of presidential campaigns.
Reform groups have proposed changes in the laws that could make the public financing system work again. Legislation introduced in 2003 reflects many of those changes.
Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Representatives Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) introduced a bill in the last Congress that would reform the public funding system for presidential campaigns. The bill would change the primary financing system by:
- Increasing the overall spending limit.
- Eliminating state-by-state limits.
- Doubling the spending limit for some candidates facing a privately funded opponent.
- Requiring candidates receiving general election funds to participate in the primary financing system.
- Instituting reforms designed to increase public funds available to the system.
