“Strong Support for Fair Elections” blairs the headline at the website of Fair Elections Now, an umbrella organization of pro-regulation groups dedicated to drumming up support to have the government take over paying for political campaigns.
We suppose this is true, if one ignores the actual results of the election. First, despite desperate pleas from the President and Democratic leaders, voters didn’t seem particularly concerned about the use of “secret donors,” “shadowy groups,” and “illegal foreign money” in Republican campaigns. But more importantly, when voters were given the question of tax funded campaigns directly, they rejected it. In the nation’s fourth largest state, Floridians voted to repeal the state’s system of government funding for elections by a 53-47 margin. (Because repealing the system requires a Constitutional Amendment, and changing the state Constitution requires a 60 percent supermajority, Floridians will be stuck with paying for political ads and consultants for a while longer, it appears.) Meanwhile, in liberal Portland, Oregon, voters voted to terminate that city’s system of tax financed campaigns, also by a 53-47 margin.
These defeats follow on a series of recent ballot box defeats for tax funding of political campaigns. In June, in the nation’s largest (and arguably most liberal) state, Californians voted against a “fair elections” proposal by a thumping 57-43 margin. This follows a 2006 referendum in which Californians also voted overwhelmingly against tax financed elections. In 2008, Alaskans voted against tax funding of elections by 65 percent to 35 percent—even in the midst of an influence peddling scandal. In 2002, voters in liberal Massachusetts voted to end funding for their state’s “clean elections” law by a nearly two to one margin. In short, in states big and small, liberal and conservative, tax financing of elections—even when served up to voters under the pleasing platitudes of “clean elections” or “fair elections”—has been a loser.
Still, at Fair Elections Now, they are undaunted, and we admire their stubborn rejection of this reality. Commissioning a poll by Lake Research Partners, FEN, as we’ll call them, got the answers they wanted but haven’t been able to get at the ballot box. Here is how FEN had Lake Research describe “fair elections” to respondents:
Now I am going to describe for you a specific proposal that would change the way federal election campaigns are funded. The goal is to reduce the impact of special interest money on Congress. Under this plan, candidates for Congress could run for office without raising large campaign contributions. Instead, they would collect a large number of small contributions from their home state in order to qualify for a limited amount of funding for their campaigns. They would be prohibited from taking any contributions over one hundred dollars from anyone, but would still be allowed to take small contributions. Contributions of a hundred dollars or less from their home state would be matched on a four-to-one basis, up to a strict limit, from a Fair Elections Fund, which would be financed at no cost to taxpayers by auctioning the unused broadcast spectrum. Do you favor or oppose this proposal to fund campaigns with small contributions and limited public funds, or don’t you have an opinion on this?
Hey, I’d vote for that! It will “reduce the impact of special interest money on Congress,” provide “limited funding,” be subject to “strict limits” on the public purse, with money from a “Fair Elections Fund,” which (best of all!) “would be financed at no cost to taxpayers.” It’s magic! Sign me up! And to make sure I get it, the final ask reminds me that thanks to this, campaigns will be funded “with small contributions.” Find me someone in opposition to that, and I’ll find you someone who hates America, his mom, and apple pie.
The reality is that “Fair Elections” (or “clean elections,” for you old timers) remains “the reform that dare not speak its name”—that is, tax, or government, financing of campaigns. Ask voters that straightforward question, as we did in a 2006 survey (well, OK, we actually asked about “public financing”), or as the State of Florida and the City of Portland did in this election, and you get a much different answer.
Meanwhile, I wonder what response Lake Research would have gotten to this question:
Now I am going to describe for you a specific proposal that would change the way federal election campaigns are funded. A likely result is to reduce the number of competitive races in Congress. Under this plan, candidates for Congress could run for office without having to appeal to the public to support their campaigns. Instead, they would be given tens of thousands of dollars from the government. This would be financed by raising the deficit, selling off government assets, or cutting spending on other government programs. Do you favor or oppose this proposal to fund campaigns with taxes, or don’t you have an opinion on this?
I’m thinkin’ that version of “Fair Elections” doesn’t poll so well.
