|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 9 |
 |
Campaign finance system needs reform
BEN KREIDER
CONTRIBUTOR
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean just raised the most money in a quarter for a Democratic contender, beating Bill Clinton. In fact, he has raised so much that he recently opted not to receive federal matching funds for the primary. This watershed moment demonstrates a clear need to reform the problematic campaign finance system.
Dean chose to forgo close to $19 million from the federal government. If he had elected to participate in the system, the federal government would have matched all of his contributions up to $250. Such a move would have also limited his primary spending to $45 million.
With more than two months before the first primary and caucus, Dean has raised slightly more than $25 million. The problem is that he would likely reach the spending limit months before the national convention in July. No Republican has challenged Bush, meaning that he can sit on his vast war chest without spending a dime. The competitive Democratic primary, however, will drain candidates of their funds.
Bush has already raised over $84 million for the race, and he is widely expected to raise a whopping $200 million for the general election. Accepting federal matching funds would have been political suicide, as it would have made Dean vulnerable after he reached the limit. Bush would thus be able to bombard the airwaves with negative ads. Dean would be utterly defenseless once he reached the limit, and he could not legally spend a dime.
Dean's November 8 announcement got a greater deal of attention, and rightfully so. Campaign finance laws are designed to encourage donations in small amounts, as the government will not match any contribution great than $250. Dean's campaign has been wildly successful in this arena, as the average contribution is just $77.
According to reports the campaign filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in early October, more than 50 percent of Dean's contributions were $200 or less. John Kerry, the next most successful candidate at soliciting small contributions, raised only 14 percent of his funds through these small contributions. George W. Bush has raised 74 percent of his money through contributions of $2,000 or more. Only 13 percent of Dean's contributions reached the $2,000 limit for individual donations.
Dean's fundraising prowess has been unprecedented and it forced the campaign to make the difficult decision regarding federal matching funds. Many have called the Governor, an outspoken advocate of campaign finance reform, a hypocrite for declining to participate in the system. Dean should not be faulted for refusing to participate in a highly flawed system.
Following Dean's lead, both Kerry and Clark may opt out now. This is the first time Democrats have opted out of the system since it began in the wake of Watergate. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Bush has already opted not to receive federal funds during the primary, meaning that he can spend an unlimited amount of money. In order to compete with Bush, Dean had to follow suit and play the president in his own game. The goal of every candidate is to be elected, and Dean merely made the decision that would allow him to be competitive.
The real issue here is the need to reform the ailing campaign finance system, not a candidate's alleged hypocrisy.
The Dean campaign is a beacon of hope in that it has raised an unprecedented amount of cash through small contributions. Yet outdated campaign finance laws, which are designed to promote this type of grassroots fundraising, are actually punishing the campaign's success.
Undoubtedly, there are no easy fixes for the system. Money will always play a role in politics, but there are simple changes that can be made to improve the system.
First of all, spending limits for the primary must be dramatically increased to reflect the increasingly expensive nature of campaigning. There also needs to be a mechanism that would penalize campaigns, such as Bush's, that circumvent the system. Matching funds should be given for even larger contributions, perhaps up to $500. And ultimately, Congress needs to pass stricter laws to prevent the flow of money from Political Action Committees (PACs), which have pumped more than $1 million into Bush's campaign despite new campaign finance laws.
The contrasts between Bush and Dean's fundraising efforts could not be starker. One has raked in wheelbarrows of special interest money, while the other has gotten most of his contributions from ordinary citizens who gave what they could afford. Even if Dean does not win the nomination or election, he has given a wake-up call to the few who still had faith in the campaign finance system.
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |