Who Pays for Publicly Funded Elections?

A majority of Pennsylvania's Members of Congress have indicated support for publicly funded elections.
WHO PAYS FOR CLEAN ELECTIONS?


In Arizona, 60-65% of the cost of Clean Elections is paid for by a surcharge on civil and criminal fines. The remainder is covered by the $5 contributions collected by the candidates running as Clean candidates and an optional $5 income tax check-off box on the state income tax form. State income tax filers can choose to redirect up to 20% of their income tax due (with a $550 limit) to the Clean Elections Commission. In Maine, the Clean Elections program cost $2.16 per citizen for the 2004 election. Maine's program is paid for from their General Fund.
WHO PAYS FOR OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF PRIVATELY FINANCED ELECTIONS? We do! Much of the money that large contributors give to candidates is given as payment for favorable treatment the lawmaker has already rendered to the contributor or as an investment with the expectation that, once elected, the candidate will deliver favorable treatment in the future. In the case of incumbents seeking re-election, both of these motivations are at work. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans contributed more than $200 to federal candidates in 2004. Many are business people whose job is to advance the interests of their company. And it makes good business sense for these contributors to invest money in candidates, especially in incumbent candidates. These lawmakers have the power to return the contributor's investment many, many times over. Perhaps the contributor wants a small change in the tax code that will benefit his company or his personal fortune. Perhaps he wants more "de-regulation" for his industry, allowing him to raise prices or avoid spending money to meet health standards. Perhaps he wants a small change in the law that will enable his company to avoid paying the pensions or benefits it has promised to its employees. Perhaps he wants a certain commissioner put on the commission that will decide if a merger will be allowed or a product approved. Perhaps it is as simple as having an elected official guide a government contract to the contributor's company. The problem is, of course, that when the elected officials pay back their contributors, it has real and negative consequences for the rest of us. When contributors get to pay less in taxes, the rest of us end up having to pay more. When an industry is allowed to dominate a market, we pay higher prices. When industries can get out of meeting health and safety requirements, we all pay the price. When companies are allowed to walk away from the promises they made to their employees, we all lose. The point is that we are already paying for our elections. Every time we pay our taxes, or our utility bills, or when we fill up at the gas pump, or when we pay for health care or we get a prescription filled; the cost of the current campaign finance system is built into the price. There is, in fact, no free lunch. Currently, ordinary citizens, end up with the worst of both worlds - we are indirectly paying much more than is necessary for our election campaigns and we have lost control over our government. It should also be noted that we already pay for our elected officials' salaries, pensions, health insurance, for their assistants, their assistants' salaries and benefits, their offices, cars, etc.. In addition, we pay the enormous costs of the decisions made by our elected officials. The idea that we should balk at also paying the tiny amount required to have honest elections is akin to building a new bank but deciding that buying a door for the vault just costs too much. Would those who oppose publicly funded elections because they claim it would "cost too much" be willing to save even more money by letting the people who are currently paying for election campaigns to also pay our elected officials' salaries? You can be sure there are many powerful self-interested people who are more than ready to put lawmakers on their payroll - for all the same reasons they are willing to pay for their election campaigns!

WHO PAYS FOR OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF PRIVATELY FINANCED ELECTIONS?

We do!

Much of the money that large contributors give to candidates is given as payment for favorable treatment the lawmaker has already rendered to the contributor or as an investment with the expectation that, once elected, the candidate will deliver favorable treatment in the future. In the case of incumbents seeking re-election, both of these motivations are at work.

Less than one-half of one percent of Americans contributed more than $200 to federal candidates in 2004. Many are business people whose job is to advance the interests of their company.

And it makes good business sense for these contributors to invest money in candidates, especially in incumbent candidates. These lawmakers have the power to return the contributor's investment many, many times over.

Perhaps the contributor wants a small change in the tax code that will benefit his company or his personal fortune. Perhaps he wants more "de-regulation" for his industry, allowing him to raise prices or avoid spending money to meet health standards. Perhaps he wants a small change in the law that will enable his company to avoid paying the pensions or benefits it has promised to its employees. Perhaps he wants a certain commissioner put on the commission that will decide if a merger will be allowed or a product approved. Perhaps it is as simple as having an elected official guide a government contract to the contributor's company.

The problem is, of course, that when the elected officials pay back their contributors, it has real and negative consequences for the rest of us.

When contributors get to pay less in taxes, the rest of us end up having to pay more. When an industry is allowed to dominate a market, we pay higher prices. When industries can get out of meeting health and safety requirements, we all pay the price. When companies are allowed to walk away from the promises they made to their employees, we all lose.

The point is that we are already paying for our elections. Every time we pay our taxes, or our utility bills, or when we fill up at the gas pump, or when we pay for health care or we get a prescription filled; the cost of the current campaign finance system is built into the price. There is, in fact, no free lunch.

Currently, ordinary citizens, end up with the worst of both worlds - we are indirectly paying much more than is necessary for our election campaigns and we have lost control over our government.

It should also be noted that we already pay for our elected officials' salaries, pensions, health insurance, for their assistants, their assistants' salaries and benefits, their offices, cars, etc.. In addition, we pay the enormous costs of the decisions made by our elected officials. The idea that we should balk at also paying the tiny amount required to have honest elections is akin to building a new bank but deciding that buying a door for the vault just costs too much.

Would those who oppose publicly funded elections because they claim it would "cost too much" be willing to save even more money by letting the people who are currently paying for election campaigns to also pay our elected officials' salaries? You can be sure there are many powerful self-interested people who are more than ready to put lawmakers on their payroll - for all the same reasons they are willing to pay for their election campaigns!