HALT PUBLIC FINANCED CAMPAIGNS

We have plenty of socialists in politics. That's evident. So, it stands to reason that some in politics would also want socialist style (public financed) political campaigns. An interesting point is that, whereas the Democrats are the primary proponents of socialism in the U.S., it seems to be conservatives who are the driving force behind publicly financed political campaigns.

The argument is that offering public funds to help people run for public office takes private money out of politics. That would, of course, be self-evident. The problem is, there are also a couple very important unintended consequences most people do not realize. So, perhaps we should look into this a little.

According to Public Campaign(1): The Citizens Clean Elections Act, passed by Arizona voters in 1998, provides full public funding of campaigns to candidates who are willing to abide by campaign spending limits and forgo the use of private money in their campaigns. In 2000, 16 Arizonans were elected to office using Clean Elections funds. Participation in Clean Elections has since grown to more than 100 candidates this year, including more than 80% of candidates for statewide office and nearly 50% of legislative candidates.

"One dirty little secret of American politics is that most politicians are as dismayed by the private money chase as is the average voter," said Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign. "Given the option of a clean alternative that frees them from constantly dialing for dollars, and puts them on a level-playing field with their opponents, hundreds of candidates in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts from across the political spectrum are showing that there's a better way."

In a May 14 press release, Public Campaign reports: "With filing deadlines closing for office-seekers in Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts, a bumper crop of serious contenders are lining up to run 'clean' for statewide office in 2002, showing deepening support for these states' far-reaching systems of full public financing for candidates who agree to raise little private money and abide by strict spending limits."(2)

In Arizona, 29 out of the 34 declared candidates for statewide office are participating in Clean Elections, including 7 out of 8 major candidates for governor. Janet Napolitano, the current Attorney General and leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, has already handed in more than 6,000 qualifying contributions of $5 and received her first grant of $409,950 in public funding. So far, 44% of the candidates for state legislative office have announced their participation, up from 27% in 2000.

So, what happened? Just for Governor of Arizona this year, there are ten candidates, seven of whom are running with public funds. Many are unknown and stand zero chance of getting elected to anything of importance. And, here's our first point: How many of these candidates would be running for office if they had to organize a team and scrounge for political contributions on their own?

Generally speaking, voters evaluate candidates on three major points early on in the campaign. First, we look at the would be candidate's opinion: where they stand on the issues that most concern us. Second, we look at the heart and believability of the candidate: if they have the tenacity to follow through on what they say and are truthful. And third, we look for organization: if they can run a successful campaign and actually get something worthwhile accomplished if they do get in office -- and have a willingness to protect our rights while in office.

All three points require that the proposed candidate is able to instill trust and confidence in the district's voters. We can identify dozens of people with at least one great idea, but an action track record of zero. We can also identify many others who are very good motivational speakers, yet haven't a clue about political issues and would take a schizoid approach to the larger problems concerning politicians everyday. Obviously, these would not be acceptable candidates. Yet, under the public financing scheme, they could get their political campaigns financed with public funds, if they chose to run for office.

The initial part of the campaign, when a proposed candidate first seeks the help of a few close friends and neighbors to get a race started, is what usually separates the wheat from the chaff. Step two requires the proposed candidate convince a few core Party members to help out by convincing others and starting to raise some money. This is where we see if the proposed candidate has any organization skills and ideas that will interest voters.

In Arizona, candidates must prove they're viable by gathering hundreds of individual $5 contributions. Then they get fixed amounts of public cash for the campaign and can't raise any more private money. Unless, that is, they're outspent by privately funded candidates. In that case, the state will contribute more -- up to $1.2 million in the Arizona gubernatorial primaries, and $1.8 million in the general election.

Gathering the $5 contributions is easy. It's called "sponsoring a spoiler" against the competition. So, if I were running a campaign for a Republican candidate, under that system I would be more than happy to insure that the Green candidate stays in the race to draw votes away from the Democratic Party's candidate. Ah yes indeed, I would be more than happy to help make that happen!

The point is, public funding of political campaigns allows any disorganized nitwit to run for office. And, as pointed out above, many will stumble onto the ballot for less than completely honorable reasons -- as spoilers and/or disrupters.

So, while I firmly agree that the campaign finance rules need to be changed, I cannot agree with public funding. We already have enough idiots in public office. There is no reason to make it easier for even more to have an opportunity to get elected. At the very least, candidates must display very good organization skills. The public financing scheme eliminates that need from the equation.

Besides, it is improper to ask taxpayers to finance the political campaigns of candidates with whom they may be diametrically opposed.

Probably the only way to clean up the campaign financing mess is to restrict campaign contributions to registered voters of the candidate's district. Any other method just opens new doors to more interesting types of political mischief.

We have plenty of socialists in politics who also want socialist style (public financed) political campaigns.

And, here's our first point: How many of these candidates would be running for office if they had to organize a team and scrounge for political contributions on their own?

Candidates are evalued by three points: Opinion, sincerety and organizational ability.

All three points require that the proposed candidate is able to instill trust and confidence in the district's voters.

I would be more than happy to insure that the Green candidate stays in the race to draw votes away from the Democratic Party's candidate. Ah yes indeed, I would be more than happy to help make that happen!

At the very least, candidates must display very good organization skills. The public financing scheme eliminates that need from the equation. Besides, it is improper to ask taxpayers to finance the political campaigns of candidates with whom they may be diametrically opposed.

"If someone is too incompetant and/or lazy to raise funds for a campaign, why should I believe that they will NOT be lazy and incompetant when taking on larger responsibilities? Take your class warfare crap somewhere else. "

It's a lot easier to raise funds when you sell your vote to raise money.

In any event, they would be more intelligent than an incompetent speller you. I'll take brains over money raising any day.

Clean Elections is a nightmare, created by ininformed voters through the initiative proces. We are forced to donate to candidates who we disagree with, when a candidate who is not taking state money raises more money than the clean election candidate the taxpayers give that amount to the clean election candidate. the clean elections system does not take into account the expenses of fund raising, so the candidate raising his own money comes up short the expenses involved in raising the money.

The system is filled with opportunities for corruption, a group of people can each get the required number of $5.00 private donations, send the money to the state, they all get a check from the state, they could then go out and buy ads, signs, etc. for a designated candidate in the group to get that person elected in the primary.

The people running clean elections are unelected unaccountable bureaucrats, when was the last time a system like that remained free of corruption?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.