end of public financing
[here’s the full LAT story - Hillary’s the first, and given her
enormous fundraising prowess she has to be considered a major reason
why the other big candidates will have to try to match her]
Los Angeles Times - January 22, 2007
Just $83.8 million? No thanks
Clinton passes on public funds for ‘08, and other candidates are
likely to. They need real money.
By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer
January 22, 2007
For the first time since the nation launched its grand experiment
with publicly financed presidential campaigns three decades ago,
major-party nominees in 2008 are expected to turn down all public funds.
The reason: The grant, expected to be $83.8 million, might not be
enough to run a winning campaign.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York) is the first top-tier
candidate to tip her hand that she intends to leave the public money
on the table. Senior Clinton advisor Howard Wolfson said by e-mail
Sunday that she would not take matching funds in the primary campaign
or, if she wins the Democratic nomination, in the general election.
On her campaign website, Clinton suggests that donors give her $2,100
for the primary and another $2,100 for the general — a sign that she
won’t seek matching funds in the general election. Candidates who
take public money in the general election must forgo fundraising.
Using her contacts and those of President Clinton, Sen. Clinton
raised nearly $40 million for her 2006 Senate race, showing she could
tap moneyed interests in New York and California, two deep wells of
Democratic funds.
“She’ll do fabulously” in the money race, said Sacramento lobbyist
Darius Anderson, who helps Democrats raise money and is a business
associate of one of Clinton’s backers, Los Angeles billionaire Ron
Burkle. “The Clinton network and the Clinton list is by far the most
extensive of any Democrat.”
Abandonment of the public financing system would threaten the
survival of a Watergate-era measure that was supposed to limit the
influence of big donors in presidential politics and enable more
candidates to compete.
If major candidates walk away from public financing, “it really calls
into question why it exists at all,” said Federal Election Commission
Chairman Robert D. Lenhard, a supporter of the system.
The system is being rendered obsolete by escalating campaign costs,
sophisticated fundraising techniques, tepid public support and major
candidates such as Clinton who could raise $100 million on their own
before the first 2008 primary — and $500 million by election day.
There are efforts to revive the system. “It is a reversal, but not
necessarily a fatal reversal,” said Steven Weissman of the
nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute in Washington, among the
groups pushing to rescue public financing.
But it remains to be seen whether the heavy spending forecast for
2008 will, as public-finance advocates predict, trigger public
disgust and lead to changes.
Until then, “to be considered a top-tier serious candidate almost by
definition means you’re not going to be participating in the public
financing system” in either the primary or general election
campaigns, said Democratic consultant Chris Lehane of San Francisco,
who worked in the Clinton White House.
As originally envisioned, the matching funds system offered
candidates a deal: In exchange for voluntarily limiting their
spending, the federal government would provide them with tax money to
defray primary campaign costs and relieve them of having to raise
money in the general election.
Taxpayers pay for it by checking a box on their income tax forms
earmarking $3. But despite outcries against the influence of private
money in politics, the concept has not caught on with the public. At
its height in 1980, 28% of taxpayers marked the box. Now, not even
10% ask that part of their taxes be used for presidential campaigns.
It’s a system that seems almost quaint in an age of Internet
fundraising and in the face of other laws that have the effect of
opening the way for big campaign spending. Though $83 million seems
huge, it might pale by comparison with the sums that candidates could
raise from private sources — increasing the likelihood that nominees
would leave the public money on the table.
“It is mind-boggling,” said Washington political consultant Jeffrey
Bell, a Republican who supports public financing.
A few past candidates have turned down public money for primary
campaigns rather than agree to limit their fundraising, a
precondition for getting the taxpayer largesse. Ross Perot and Steve
Forbes didn’t need it; they used personal wealth. In the 2004
primaries, President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) raised
more money than would have been permitted had they used matching funds.
But in every general election campaign, beginning in 1976 when Jimmy
Carter beat President Ford, the nominees have accepted matching
funds. In 2004, the FEC gave $75 million each to Kerry and Bush. With
an inflation adjustment, the grant will exceed $80 million in 2008 —
if anyone takes it.
“The nominees of both major parties are likely to turn down public
money for the general election for the first time in history, and
raise private contributions for both the primary and the general,”
Commissioner Michael E. Toner said in an interview.
The system is ailing for a variety of reasons. By law, the FEC bases
its matching-fund increases on inflation, but the cost of campaigning
has far outpaced inflation. Toner predicts that major-party nominees
will raise $500 million each by election day — roughly double what
Bush and Kerry raised in 2004.
Fundraising itself has changed, aided by direct mail and the
Internet. Legislation by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D.
Feingold (D-Wis.) was intended to limit the influence of money in
politics. But it also more than doubled the amount that individual
donors could give to presidential candidates. That in turn has made
it easier for candidates to raise yet more money.
The maximum that a single donor can give is $2,100 for a primary and
another $2,100 for a general election, though the commission probably
will raise that to $2,200 or $2,300 this year.
“Fundraising has changed so much that in order to … get people to opt
in to the public funding system, you would have to dramatically
increase the subsidy and the amount that a candidate could spend,”
said Anthony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College in Maine
who studies presidential campaign finances.
The law also provides candidates with millions of dollars for
primaries — so long as they agree to restrict their spending. In
2008, the cap on spending would be about $50 million.
The demand for money for 2008 is heightened by the heavily front-
loaded primary calendar. Democrats will hold caucuses in Iowa and
Nevada and primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina between next
Jan. 14 and Jan. 29.
(Republicans have not set their primary calendar.)
Campaign finance experts believe a candidate easily could spend $25
million in those four states, then face a crush of primaries in
February, possibly including California’s.
As of last month, Clinton had $14.4 million in her campaign account.
Several experts said Clinton could amass $100 million by the end of
2007.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Republicans McCain, former New York
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
could raise similar sums.
By contrast, Bill Clinton had $3.3 million in 1991 as he headed into
Iowa and New Hampshire.
“There is going to be a $100-million entry fee in this White House
race,” Toner said.
Aides to at least one other candidate talk openly about his plan to
bypass federal funds.
“Our intention is to opt out, but we will not make a final decision
until later this year,” said consultant Roy Behr of Los Angeles,
representing former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Democrat running for the
presidency.
McCain, though not tipping his hand, “believes the public financing
system is not fulfilling its original goal and must be reformed,”
said McCain spokesman Danny Diaz.
Advocates of public financing say the money race of 2008 will
underscore the need to salvage the federal system. The Campaign
Finance Institute, affiliated with George Washington University,
suggests raising the match: $3 for each dollar that candidates raise
in small sums. Then a $100 donation, for example, could be leveraged
into $400. Feingold is expected to reintroduce legislation to raise
the subsidy, though experts say a fix cannot be instituted in time
for the 2008 campaign.
“The system has become outmoded and we need to fix it,” said Fred
Wertheimer, long a proponent of public financing and head of the
independent political watchdog Democracy 21, which also is pushing
for an overhaul. “All the fundraising is going to make our case. The
story is going to demonstrate why the [public financing] system makes
sense.”
But others question whether the public will lament the demise of a
system derided as “welfare for politicians.”
Darry Sragow, a Democratic attorney and consultant in Los Angeles,
said most voters saw no benefit in spending tax money on politics.
“It is the height of irony, if not insult, to say to a voter: ‘We’re
going to take your money and send you all that mail you hate, and
produce all the negative ads that make you want to use the remote,’ “
he said.
dan.morain@latimes.com
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Public campaign financing
After Watergate, Congress enacted a law making public funds available
for presidential campaigns. Beginning in 1974 with $20 million, the
pot available to major-party nominees in the general election* has
grown with inflation:
2008 $83.8 million**
2004 $74.62 million
2000 $67.56 million
1996 $61.82 million
1992 $55.24 million
1988 $46.1 million
1984 $40.4 million
1980 $29.44 million
1976 $21.82 million
*Public matching funds are also available for primary candidates who
agree to limit their spending. The limit for 2008 will be roughly $50
million. Grants are given dollar for dollar on up to $250 in
individual donations.
**Projected
Source: Federal Election Commission