Longarzo 1 Brian Longarzo Dr. Kenneth M.

Currie American National Government 01M 28nd February, 2012 Public Financing for US Presidential Elections Its no surprise that there is waste in government. According to the report, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue published by the Congressional Accountability Office in 2011, there was at least $6.5 billion wasted last year on programs considered to fall into the categories of, duplication, overlap, or fragmentation. (Office) It is not unreasonable to question the fiscal sense of publically financing US presidential elections, given the lack of data suggesting possible benefits that it may offer. There are also the current complexities of public financing and concerns over who would create and regulate a reformed system to consider. Furthermore, accepting that public debt exceeds $15 trillion (Hall) and considering the lack of substantive evidence for reform of the currently implemented publically funded presidential election fund, it would be fiscally irresponsible at this time for the legislature to attempt a new system or continue with the current one. The public is understandably very distrustful of what happens in public life when there are contributions by interested parties in the political process in terms of whether that influences our official decisions. This opinion, expressed by Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA) in 2009, is espoused by supporters of publically financed presidential elections. They argue that when candidates accept money from private entities, these donors gain an unfair influence over the candidate, which translate into favoritism once the candidate is elected. This is akin to bribery,

Longarzo 2 they conclude. By the same logic, in the absence of private donations, there can be no question as to where funds for elections come from, and this would increase financial transparency and contribute to a decrease in corruption. The proliferation of soft money, or campaign contributions that are used for voter mobilization, grassroots organizing, and party mobilization, (Witherbee) is a principle factor in contributing to that corruption, proponents of public financing say. This money would traditionally be illegally obtained, if not for the soft money rule and is inherently disingenuous, as former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) questioned "Who, after all, can seriously contend that a $100,000 donation does not alter the way one thinks about and quite possible votes?" In fact, during the 2002 elections, 36% of Republican and 53% of Democratic campaign donations consisted of soft money (Witherbee). This lack of transparency contributes to a feeling of business as usual and suggests that low voter-turnout may be a symptom of this complacency of a broken system. For example, it is evident that unaccountable donations contribute to the skyrocketing amounts spent in political campaigns (nearly $4 billion in 2000 alone), though only little more than half of all eligible voters participated in the election, (McDonald) with supporters of public financing pointing to the lack of accountability as a factor for the low turnout. Conversely, the case against public financing asks why a taxpayer should pay to support a candidate whose views they do not agree with. This side of the argument cites the fact that even though George W. Bush was limited to raising $100,000 per contributor (Wilson), he became President. This suggests that the opinions of the candidate effect fundraising through private means, and if there had been public financing the electoral outcome may have been different: a referendum from the state, rather than that of the people. Furthermore, during the

Longarzo 3 presidential campaign of Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a substantial amount was raised through private donors on the internet, making him the, best-financed Democrat. (Justice) Though both sides of the issue have compelling cases, the determination that public campaign funding is unnecessary and perhaps unconstitutional is clear. In the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, the court ruled that campaign contributions were the equivalent to free speech: specifically stating that, The limitations on expenditures by candidates and their committees, except for Presidential candidates who accept public funding are unconstitutional (http://www.fec.gov). Its clear then, that when a Presidential candidate does not accept public funding, limitations on the amounts that can be spent may not exist. This renders public funding irrelevant for many cases of Presidential candidates, because the vast sums that can be raised during the course of the campaign are nearly unattainable given the current rules that accompany public financing. Furthermore, and again with debt exceeding $15 trillion, asking the taxpayer to pay for a candidates campaign would be fiscally irresponsible, because the money simply does not exist. Answering the charge that private contributions contribute to low voter turnout, I conclude there is no correlative evidence to suggest such a claim. In fact, if the 2008 elections are correlative, the absence of public financing may actually increase voter turnout. Since 1971 when the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted, and beginning with the 1972 election, voter turnout declined with the exceptions of the 1992 and 2000 elections. However, a large spike to 61.6% in turnout occurred in 2008 with the election of Barrack Obama, who again, did not accept public funding. (FEC) However, even if reform of public financing is not attempted, the system is still largely irrelevant. In 2008, then candidate Obama was reported to have raised a sum near $750 million

Longarzo 4 (FEC), without the backing of public campaign financing. In fact, he cited his reasons for not accepting the public financing were because it allows, special interests [to] drown out the voices of the American people (Issues), the very argument espoused by opponents of private campaign financing. Since the 2008 election, (though never before), no other presidential candidate is expected to accept public funding for the 2012 campaign, rendering the issue moot at this time.

Longarzo 5

Works Cited
Commission, Federal Election. 2008 Presidential Campaign Finance. 2008. 28 Feburary 2012 <http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do;jsessionid=D8D2738036B0B8A0FC854FE863B399CE.wor ker1>. Hall, Ed. U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK. 28 Feburary 2012. 28 Feburary 2012 <http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/>. Justice, Glen. "The Nation; Howard Dean's Internet Push: Where Will it Lead?" The New York Times 2 November 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/weekinreview/the-nation-howard-dean-sinternet-push-where-will-it-lead.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. McDonald, Dr. Michael. 2000 General Election Turnout Rates. 28 December 2011. 28 February 2012 <http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2000G.html>. Obama, Barack. "McCain attacks Obama for opting out of public financing." 19 June 2008. CNN Politics. 28 Feburary 2012 <http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-19/politics/obama.public.financing_1_publicfinancing-obama-campaign?_s=PM:POLITICS>. Office, Congressional Accountability. http://www.gao.gov/. March 2011. 20 Feburary 2012 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf>. Wilson, Brian. "Point: Campaign Finance Reform Restricts Free Speech." Points of View: Campaign Finance (2011): p5-p5. Witherbee, Amy. "Counterpoint: Democracy for Sale." Points of View: Campaign Finance (2011): p6-p6. "Presidential Election Voter Turnout, 1972-2000 (sidebar)." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 29 Mar. 2002. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.2facts.com/article/ib700680>.

Longarzo 6