For fairer campaigns: full, public funding

The current system fuels the corruption of democracy.

from the October 29, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

Politicians won't change the system that protects them? Congress banned soft money when voters got vocal. Publicly funded state legislators appreciate spending only a third of the time fundraising that their privately funded peers do.

We can reform the system incrementally? With private money, transparency is fantasy. Post-Watergate reforms led to an increase in spending for congressional seats from $9 million in 1968 to $89 million in 1972. McCain-Feingold's soft-money crackdown doubled hard money limits. Incremental reform has been a mirage for decades.

Full public financing is too radical? Not for the states – nor for Teddy Roosevelt, who attempted it in 1907. Democracy itself was a radical concept when the founders framed it. Our electoral system has evolved substantially since the days when only white, wealthy, male landowners were allowed to vote.

If too many candidates opt out, creating no resistance to spiraling spending, a constitutional amendment would have to override the Supreme Court's Orwellian money-is-speech ruling – no trivial matter. But there's precedent for electoral reform: Outrage over manipulation of senators when they were appointed by state legislatures led to direct elections through an amendment in 1913.

Voters have ranked corruption above the economy, terrorism, and Iraq on their list of concerns. If you're among them, call your senator's office in support of the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act. Accountable reform in healthcare, energy, the environment, and other lobby-heavy domains is delusional until we stop electing lawmakers with their money.

The choice between status quo and clean money is clear. Expand pay-to-play, earmarks, ballooning deficits, incumbency, legislative manipulation, deepening cynicism, and voter apathy.

Or apply a modest amount of neutral public funding to deliver true transparency, competition on the issues, responsible governance, and responsiveness to the pressing concerns of the people rather than an oligarchy of deep pockets.

The prospect of full public financing is far more plausible than pretending that candidates can ignore donor innuendo over dinner.

Mark Lange is a former presidential speechwriter. Ellen Rose is editor for the Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia.

1 | Page 2