Document:LP News 1974 January-February Issue 18: Difference between revisions

Public financing of election campaigns is not a new idea--Teddy Roosevelt proposed it--but it is a dubious and dangerous one. Passage of public financing legislation would mean that our tax dollars would be turned over to political candidates to pay for their cam- paigns. In other words, we would no longer be forced to support only the winners and the bureaucratic morass they have created, we would be stuck subsidizing the election antics of all the politicians. The fright- ening thing is that such legislation is already--in part—on the books, and that the Senate overwhelmingly adopted a major public financing proposal recently.

 

On November 27, Sen. Kennedy and some 35 cosponsors brought to the floor an amendment to the Federal Debt Ceiling bill that would have done the following things: 1) expanded the $1 income tax form check-off, and created a special fund in the Treasury for money received as a result; 2) employed this money to finance the campaigns of candidates for federal office, including presidential primary contestants, presidential candidates and Congressional candidates in the general election; 3) paid for any deficit between allocations to such candidates and checked-off funds by direct appropriation from the Treasury; 4) discriminated between candidates of "major’' parties and those of "new" or "minor" parties in setting the formula for allocation of funds under the Act; 5) banned virtually all private donations to candidates, except to candidates in Congressional primar- ies, candidates for presidential nominations (here public funds would be allocated on a matching basis after receipt of $100,000, no donation to be larger than $100), "minor" and "new" party candidates, or to state or national party committees (the total any such committee could receive or expend was also limited under a set formula); 6) set spending limits for each type of federal campaign in each state; 7) provided stiff penalties for violations; 8) provided that these provisions would go into effect beginning with the 1974 election.

 

The amendment was attached to the bill on a series of votes. An attempt to kill it drew only 36 votes, with 59 opposed. Several of those 36 Senators opposed the measure not because they were against public financing, but only because they disagreed with various provisions of the bill or felt that it went too far, too quickly. The Kennedy amendment was stricken from the bill a week later—but only after a courageous filibuster led by Sen. James Allen (D-Ala.). Even then, had the authorization for the present federal debt level not expired during the filibuster, threatening the government with bankruptcy, the amendment would probably have passed.

 

Well, you might say, if public financing was voted down, what have we got to worry about? The problem is that part of the deal made when the amendment was stricken from the debt bill was that it would be duly considered and reported to the floor by spring. The monster is not dead, it is only sleeping. And,separated from the complex Debt Ceiling bill situation, it will pass unless public opinion can be mobilized against it. Fighting public financing ought to be a project of every state party this spring.

 

Why should the Libertarian Party be particulary concerned about this legislation? First, public financing is a serious abridgement of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Prohibiting virtually all private donations violates the right of free political expression. Even Sen. Stevenson, a supporter of public financing and a cosponsor of the Kennedy amendment, recognized this during the debate. Speaking on an amendment he offered which would have softened prohibitions on individual donations, he stated:

 

It would not be constitutional to say to every individual in this country, ’You cannot contribute one cent or $1, or $5.’ At some point it becomes constitutional (to limit contributions). That is the cause of my quarrel with the amendment introduced by Senator KENNEDY, which prohibits all individual contributions except under limited circumstances. That is unconstitutional. (CONG. RECORD, p. S 21211)

 

 

As taxpayers we should be upset at the potential cost of such legislation. Sen. Kennedy modestly estimates that his plan would cost $300 million over the four year election cycle. Others are inclined to view this as a far too conservative guess. Furthermore, once such legislation is instituted, there is nothing to prevent Congress from raising the possible allocations. After all, Congressmen these days seem notoriously fond of increasing their salaries and benefits. There is every reason to believe that $300 million, even if an accurate cost estimate at present, would be only the beginning.

 

We should be concerned, too, because public financing will have a real impact upon the Party’s chances of winning elections. The Kennedy plan, which has the most support on Capitol Hill, and most other such plans all discriminate in setting allocations. Major parties automatically receive a large amount of public funds, while smaller parties and independents—if they want such money—are entitled to only limited amounts. Thus, non- established contenders must still use large amounts of time and effort in locating funds, while the established opposition moves ahead with the campaign. Such discrimination will open up additional avenues for a constitutional challenge, of course. But should such a law be upheld, once it has been in effect for some time it will become harder to solicit money or to win with such money, since private contributions will be severely limited in  size and will tend to become suspect. Furthermore, the Kennedy plan is drawn in such a way as to benefit incumbents.

 

Finally, public financing is a direct contradiction of what the Libertarian Party is attempting to accomplish—the liberation of America from the grasp of the traditional politicians. The public itself seems to be moving away from them now in the light of Watergate. A mid-September Gallup poll showed that some 33% of the American people no longer identify with either of the two established parties. And only a few percent of those who paid taxes last year used the $1 check-off—an indication that the taxpayers are less than eager to be forced to pay for the politicians' campaigns.

 

 

No one likes the present political corruption, but the answer to it is not in further "campaign reform" legislation. Corruption will continue as long as the government holds the power to tax, regulate, and dispense favors. As long as there is Big Government there will be interests which will attempt to use it to their advantage. The solution is to cut back the size and authority of government, not to impose new regulations. At worst it would be better to place our trust in a skeptical public and the investigative reporting of an unrestricted press than to impose panaceas which will further erode American liberties.

 

-/- [[Eric Scott Royce]]