We have commented in the past on the disconnect between advocates of campaign finance "reform" and the reality of the electoral process, money in politics, and democracy generally. This disconnect was on display at yesterday’s hearing on S. 1285, the oddly titled, "Fair Elections Now Act," or FENA – not to be confused with the incompetent disaster relief agency FEMA.
Let’s start with the title of the bill: Why is it that politicians cannot give bills honest, logical names. They used to – they had things like the "Labor-Management Relations Act," which set rules for labor and management relations; or the "Voting Rights Act," a bill that took steps to guarantee the right to vote. Now every bill title is some Orwellian propaganda ploy. The the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act" was neither equitable nor fiscally responsible; the "Immigration Reform and Control Act" neither made basic reforms to immigration policy nor controlled immigration; the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" was passed almost entirely on the backs of one political party, in the face of almost uniform opposition in the other.
With taxpayer financing of campaigns, the "reform" movement (there’s another one) seems deathly afraid to call their proposals what they are – tax or government financing of campaigns. Instead they come up with slogan titles, such as "Clean Elections" or now "Fair Elections." So unpopular is the actual concept – using tax dollars to pay for campaigns – that tax financing truly is "the reform that dare not speak its name."
Anyway, at yesterday’s hearing on FENA (the "Fubar Elections Now Act?"), the supporters of tax financing both on the dais and in the dock (the witness panels were stacked 6-2 in favor) waxed on about the glories of tax financing, but never connected it to any actual improvement in the state of our democracy. Testifying on behalf the Center for Competitive Politics (that’s us!), CCP VP Stephen M. Hoersting (we call him "CCP VP SMH") began by simply noting, that, "taxpayer financing of election campaigns does not improve citizens’ perceptions of government; does not increase the competitiveness of elections; does not lead to more political participation by citizens; does not lead to better representation in our statehouses and would not lead to better representation in Congress if adopted." He then provided written testimony and comments citing data and explaining why this is true. Senator McConnell (the other witness in favor of free private speech) devoted most of his message to the data on the unpopularity of tax financing, but impliedly raised the question of performance by noting that in the presidential system, taxpayers have ended up paying for "enough signs to stretch from Bakersfield to Bangor," the campaigns of fringe candidates, attack ads and the like. The implicit question – what is the point? How is government better for all this?
Not one of the proponents of reform sought to engage Senator McConnell’s or Mr. Hoersting’s arguments on any of these points. Rather, it was repeated ad nauseum how much was spent, how terrible both politicians and donors felt about the system, how wonderful taxpayer funding of campaigns would be, and how it was needed to address voter concerns about corruption, etc. etc. Not one witness or committee member sought to actually link taxpayer funding to better government in any substantive sense at all. Even in discussing the experiences of the states, Arizona and Maine, that "reformers" like to hold up as models, there are no arguments that seek to connect tax funded elections to government. Rather, the statistics cited in its favor are things such as the number of candidates who accept the tax funding. Like all "reform" measures, the connection to good government is to be taken on faith.
Thus, Nick Nyhart, Director of Public Campaign, limited his arguments for public financing to citing the number of legislators in Maine and Arizona who choose to forgo private fundraising in favor of sucking off the government teat, as if that were the test of good government, and claiming that the idea is popular.
Senator Arlen Specter said how terrible it is that the Supreme Court won’t let congress just prohibit private spending, and complained about how in his first race years ago his opponent had spent a lot of personal money in the campaign.
Arnold Hiatt defended making some $500,000 in personal political contributions in the last election cycle, and said he did it so that people who would favor a bill prohibiting from doing so in the future would be elected. He expressed great concern that his wealth gave him too much influence, although he did not refuse the opportunity to testify and recommend that his slot be given to someone with less wealth and influence.
My former FEC colleague Scott Thomas restricted his comments to technical aspects of the bill.
Senator Dick Durbin made the startling claim that today Senators such as he don’t care about their constituents and don’t pay attention to policy because they are always fundraising – I presume someone will point this out to Illinois voters when he next seeks reelection, so it truly was a "profiles in courage" moment.
And finally, former Senator Warren Rudman talked about how horrible it is to have to raise voluntary contributions under the current system of limits, and simply asserted that, "with public financing, the power rests with voters, not special interests." He did not attempt in any way to show how power is transferred to "voters," or to define "special interests," or to argue how government had changed for the better in Arizona or Maine, or why those states are better governed than Virginia or other states that allow corporate contributions, or why the tax financing of presidential races doesn’t seem to have created that dynamic.
One could measure good government in many ways, and people might disagree on the best measures – economic growth; tax rates; literacy and school test results; various health statistics; public opinion within the state about their government. The point is, the advocates of tax financing don’t even try. They offer no measure by which tax funding improves government.
Finally, we must comment on one of the more bizarre qualities of the hearing, that being the insistence – made most prominently by Senator Durbin – that the bill would not actually cost the taxpayers anything, because the money would come from a special tax on broadcasters. Of course, a tax is a tax. If government imposes a special tax on broadcasters, it can spend the money on whatever it wants – new Humvees that deflect road bombs more effectively; funding for the National Endowment for the Arts; enforcement of immigration laws; assistance to states in upgrading election machinery; or, as Senator McConnell pointed out, social security. If it is a good idea to raise government revenue in this way, then by all means Congress should do it. But it has nothing to do with campaign finance reform, except as a gimmick to try to hide from voters who is paying.
When Mr. Hoersting made the very modest point that a tax on broadcasters would be paid by someone (he didn’t say it, but it will be consumers – in the form of higher costs for advertising that gets passed on – and shareholders, who will see the value of the holdings decline) Senators Durbin and Feingold became visually and viscerally angry at any suggestion that the "the public doesn’t own the airwaves" – something Mr. Hoersting never even addressed. Is this plain old economic illiteracy on behalf of our senators? Demagoguery? The Senators are not stupid, so perhaps it is just propaganda, as the insistence on saying that taxpayers won’t pay for the campaigns seems to reflect an understanding of the tremendous unpopularity of tax financing with the public.
