Posted by
RationalGuy on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:50:17 AM
Current federal campaign finance regulations are both limited in effectiveness and questionable on First Amendment grounds, and in any case candidates are increasingly opting out of the system since the money they can raise privately exceeds the current spending limits that would apply if they limited private contributions and accepted public matching funds. Fortunately, there is a simpler alternative that is more effective in reducing the excessive, corrupting influence of money in politics, which poses no threat to free speech, and which would keep candidates within the system.
We simply need to (1) increase the matching multiple (e.g., $10 in public funding for each dollar raised from a private source), and (2) raise the spending limits high enough to remove the incentive to opt out of the system and depend entirely on private contributions. (There could be petition signature requirements or other means of qualifying as a serious candidate to be eligible for the matching funds.)
The cost would be a few billion dollars each election cycle, and it would be the best investment taxpayers have ever made. Reducing the influence of large contributors representing particular industries -- and, in turn, reducing or eliminating the special tax breaks, subsidies, import quotas and favorable regulations that constitute the return on contributors' investments -- would certainly save taxpayers many times the cost of funding the campaigns, and would do so from Year 1 onward. Not a bad ROI.