The torrents of cash now flowing into the race for president – as well as elections here in Colorado – are prompting a searching review of the laws governing campaign financing.
The issue isn’t new. “Big money” has been a problem in politics since “Dollar Mark” Hanna raised $3.5 million in 1896 – a staggering sum at the time – to help William McKinley defeat William Jennings Bryan.
The Watergate scandal prompted the first serious attempts to limit campaign spending but the ensuing “reforms” – including political action committees, “soft money” and “bundled” contributions – often boomeranged by reducing accountability for the special interest cash looking for “the best government money can buy,” as the cynical joke puts it.
That record of failed reforms has caused some critics to conclude that only public financing can dam the floodtide of favor-seeking cash. It’s certainly something Congress should explore. Public financing might level the playing field. More candidates could run, there wouldn’t be the constant money chase, and candidates wouldn’t be as beholden to big-money donors. We might actually hear more from the candidates on issues the general public cares about.
But while the idea deserves serious discussion, The Post isn’t ready to endorse public financing yet. Part of our reluctance stems from the failure of the current system where taxpayers can check off $3 on their income-tax returns to finance presidential campaigns. George W. Bush rejected that funding and the limits accompanying it in 2000, and both Bush and John Kerry spurned public money in 2004. Already Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have rejected public financing in favor of running their own money machines.
Obama announced recently that he raised more than $32.5 million in the April-through-June quarter. It put him ahead of other presidential candidates who have reported so far, including Clinton, who raised $27 million. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona raised a “mere” $11.2 million and was firing staff.
The current law gives presidential contenders a perverse incentive to opt out of the system, so they can seek the maximum $4,600 donation – technically $2,300 for the primary election and $2,300 for the general election – from each donor. Candidates who intend to seek public financing for the general election would be limited to accepting $2,300 per donor.
The Internet has allowed candidates to hold virtual town hall meetings and to reach out to new players in politics. It’s a wide-open landscape for raising cash.
Until and unless a workable public finance system can be agreed upon, the truckloads of money pouring into modern political campaigns underscores the need for full and rapid disclosure of all political candidates, not just presidential contestants.
That’s why we’re glad to see Secretary of State Mike Coffman overhauling Colorado’s campaign and political finance website, allowing the public to more easily search and analyze the money flowing into political campaigns. It’s a welcome change. The current campaign finance system is antiquated and cumbersome from the public’s standpoint. Information that should be readily available often requires a user to visit multiple Web pages and do multiple searches.
“The goal is total transparency,” Coffman said. “Voters have a right to know who is contributing to candidates for public office. We already require political campaigns to report their finances; now we need to make it easier for the public to search and view this information.”
We applaud Coffman for his efforts.But no matter how bright a spotlight can be focused on the subject of who is giving how much to whom, the huge amounts of money pouring into the presidential races and key state contests are unsettling.
Elena Nunez, campaign organizer for Colorado Common Cause, says it is “unhealthy for our democracy and unfair to voters. Voters are rightfully wondering: Who are [the candidates] going to be beholden to for all this money raised?”
It’s a fair question.
The 2008 presidential race promises to be a record-breaking contest in terms of money raised. Candidates need to remember who they’re beholden to, and that dollars don’t guarantee victory with voters.
