Public Funding of Campaigns

PUBLIC FINANCING IS the appropriation of money from a public treasury to candidates or parties for the express purpose of aiding them in funding electoral campaigns. Public financing schemes are generally designed to combat perceptions of widespread inequity [Page 687]or financial malfeasance in elections at the federal, state, and local levels of American government. There is a substantial diversity in the construction of public financing systems. However, they generally possess three key commonalities: they provide viable candidates with subsidies sufficient to pay for all or part of a campaign, candidates usually agree to limit their spending to a predetermined amount, and candidate participation in public funding programs is optional because mandatory spending restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

There are at least four broad issues that public subsidies seek to confront. The first is the elimination of special interest influence-peddling. Because many public funding systems proscribe the solicitation of special interest contributions, or severely restrict them, public funding is intended to mitigate the influence of resource-laden pressure groups. Second, public funding is intended to curb the growth of campaign spending, in general, allowing a greater degree of access for potential challengers. The Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that political spending equates to speech, thus striking down mandatory campaign spending caps. Public funding provides an incentive to participate in an optional program that incorporates spending limits, thus reigning in spending without mandatory limits.

Third, public subsidies work to combat the notion of the unbeatable incumbent. With name recognition, professional staff, and more highly-developed resource networks at their disposal, incumbents are difficult for a challenger to defeat. Because private donations are generally not allowed if public funding is accepted, optional election subsidies reduce disparities in funding between challengers and incumbents, allowing the former the resources to mount more effective campaigns against entrenched officeholders. Fourth, by providing them with funds directly, public financing seeks to alter the routines of candidates, freeing them from the onerous burden of fundraising with the supposition that they will reinvest that time into engaging voters directly. The assumption is that absent spending caps, candidates must devote so much time to raising money that their ability to interact with voters (and, in the case of incumbents, to represent their constituencies) is substantially undermined.

At the federal level, the presidency is the only office for which public election subsidies are available. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 created a system of partial public funding in presidential primaries and full funding for the general election. In both instances, candidates accept spending limits as a condition of participation. In the 2008 primaries, candidates must first qualify by raising $5,000 in 20 separate states, and agree to spending limits of slightly more than $40 million overall, and no more than $200,000 in any one state. The federal government then matches the first $250 of every individual contribution. Major party candidates who win their party's nomination for president receive a subsidy of $81.8 million. While the program enjoyed unanimous participation from its inception through 1996, participation has recently lessened. In 2000, George W Bush refused public funds in the primary, and neither Bush nor his 2004 opponent, John Kerry, accepted primary election funds and spending limits that year. The evidence indicates that this trend will continue.

...