Considerations
and Evaluation of
Public Campaign Financing Models
Commentary by Craig Salins
The Local
Option law approved this year in Washington State ends
a 16-year ban and allows cities and counties to establish local
programs of public funding for campaigns if they want, subject
to approval by local voters in a referendum. Widespread experimentation
is possible, designing various models of public financing or adopting
program models that have been in place in other states and cities.
How are we to evaluate the proposals and models put forward?
Here are some comments and considerations
on the topic.
Trends
First, it’s instructive to notice trends in campaign costs and
contributions, and obvious truths:
1. The spending by political campaigns
at every level is steadily increasing. This may be driven partly
by increasingly sophisticated technologies of polling, micro-targeting
of voter lists, persuasion techniques and the campaign consultants
to employ and manage these elements. Also, it may reflect the
increasing cost of media, mailings and the stuff of campaigns.
But the trend toward increasingly expensive (and sometimes not
affordable) campaigns is unlikely to reverse.
2. In Seattle, there is a clear
trend toward fewer small donors contributing to campaigns, and
the donors remaining giving larger sums. Fewer people, larger
sums.
3. Quite obviously, with campaign
spending rising, someone is paying the bill, the cost of campaigns
— and reaping the results, perhaps in face time with elected officials,
perhaps in political favors. But certainly the payers, the campaign
donors, have influence in deciding who gets to run, who has a
viable campaign (campaign “war chest”), and therefore who is likely
to be elected.
These trends and realities might
not be a cause for concern except that the influence of money
in campaigns is magnified — even though campaign contributions
are voluntary and voters have the final choice on election day.
To the extent that campaign funds are bundled or that some organizations
or individuals can influence many contributors, their decisions
actually skew election results well before election day, by influencing
who has the resources to wage a winning campaign and therefore
who will choose to run and appear on the ballot. Few persons of
limited means will decide to jump into a race if it means mortgaging
their future — even if they have wide (though not wealthy) community
support. This financial barrier to elective office leaves a system
where large donors have undue influence over election outcomes
and therefore over public policy.
But governing involves making decisions
that profoundly affect the lives of every community member — budgeting
public resources, setting policy on community issues such as transportation,
housing costs and land use planning, funding for education, water
rights and environmental protection, access to affordable health
care, farm and food policy, energy policy, and more.
If we value representative government,
we must be concerned when there are financial barriers to participation
by candidates who otherwise enjoy community support. And that
means working to eliminate those barriers, by providing equal
access to campaign resources that often determines who can run
— so that the ballot includes the best community leaders, not
simply the best fund raisers. If some candidates have wide community
support but limited access to campaign funding, it leaves us with
a system where a few donors — rather than voters — will determine
who will appear on the ballot in the first place, even before
the election. And therein lies the undue influence.
In general, participation and confidence
in elections and government is greater if all segments of the
community feel they have equal voice, equal access to those in
power, and equal chance to participate in decisions that affect
their lives. Public financing of campaigns eliminates a barrier
to participation for candidates who have community support but
who lack the resources to run.
Goals for public financing
programs
Recently, Washington Public Campaigns
suggested five fundamental goals for any public campaign financing
program, as follows:
A. Provide equal opportunity and
expanded voter choice: Eliminate financial barriers to running
for local office for persons otherwise qualified who demonstrate
community and voter support.
B. Refocus on the public interest,
not fund raising: Allow candidates and elected officials to focus
on the tasks and responsibilities of their position (representing
voters in their district, studying issues and crafting laws and
public policies) rather than on raising funds for campaigns and
re-election.
C. Curb undue influence: Eliminate
special influence or access to elected officials resulting from
financial contributions to campaigns.
D. Ensure appropriate resources:
Allow/provide sufficient financial resources for candidates to
get their message out, within the confines of reasonable public
budgets.
E. Discourage excessive campaign
contributions and spending: Discourage unreasonable growth in
(1) campaign contributions and spending and (2) expenditures tending
to influence election outcomes.
Additional Considerations
Here are some additional considerations
and factors by which to measure or evaluate proposed models of
public financing for election campaigns at the city our county
level. How well does any proposed program meet these criteria:
1. Allow qualification by serious
candidates who can demonstrate community support and would therefore
be competitive, and which requires and rewards reasonable effort
with resources necessary to wage a competitive campaign.
2. Discourage or disqualify non-serious
“hobby” candidates who lack community support and are likely to
be rejected by voters as fringe candidates - so that public funds
are not wasted on frivolous campaigns.
3. Provide sufficient resources
to qualifying candidates. Design programs that entice candidates
to use public financing without being handicapped because the
program is underfunded or needlessly bureaucratic.
4. Encourage voter-contact, and
minimize the demand of fund raising, so that candidates spend
more time with voters discussing community issues and less time
on fund raising, dialing for dollars, and romancing donors.
5. Reduce/minimize the political
influence of large contributions and bundling — particularly by
non-person entities and contributions arising from outside the
jurisdiction.
6. Discourage independent expenditures
seeking to influence campaign results.
7. Address the issue of rising campaign
costs and spending, by capping expenditures and seeking ways for
candidates to deliver their message and position on issues to
voters, without excessive mailings or spending.
8. Affordable to the city or county
— especially during a time of lagging public revenues, tight budgets
requiring difficult choices regarding use of public resources.
9. Perceived by voters to be affordable,
reasonable and needed — that is, addressing a voter-recognized
problem or undesirable trend in local election campaigns. This
is particularly important, because the newly-enacted Local Option
law requires that any proposed program be submitted to local voters
for approval or rejection in a local referendum before it can
take effect.
PFC
Models in Seattle
The Seattle Public Campaign Financing
Advisory Committee — as of this writing 5/30/08 — has examined
several PFC models in use around the country, and has tentatively
decided to work up two models to submit to the city council:
