Selective reasoning by Clean Elections opponents
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 06:18:14 PM EST
This is interesting
logic to oppose a "Clean Elections"-style public financing law:
It creates an alternate, related problem - which is that it asks taxpayers to, in effect, become political donors for candidates with whom they may very well staunchly disagree. Democrats can't be thrilled about paying tax dollars toward Republican campaigns; the converse holds equally true.
Let me get this "logic" straight: if I don't like my tax dollars going to a cause I disagree with, then that cause should not receive funding. So if I oppose my state's free school lunch program, I should be able to opt out of all spending on that program and get my money back? If I don't have a car, I should be able to decide that my tax dollars only go towards Metro systems and bike trails, and not towards building and fixing roads?
That's not how our system works, nor should it. The purpose of taxes is for
all of us to share the burden of a
public good. In that case, a Clean Elections law like the one in Rhode Island should be viewed on its merits--will it improve our democracy, will it help rid us of a problem (such as corruption, or the perception of corruption)?--and not on some flawed logic about how tax dollars can and cannot be spent.
And in that view, yes, full public financing of campaigns is a very good idea.
Yet the Kent County Daily Times continues to make misguided claims about Clean Elections, debunked after the jump.
More:
And because of the mechanisms that would be in place to help
publicly funded candidates stay competitive with their traditionally
funded opponents, voluntary political contributions to those
traditionally funded candidates have a significantly diminished effect.
Some would say that's a good thing. We'd say it's a surefire way to
hold back candidates who have demonstrated to large constituencies
they're deserving of support.
The aim of the Clean Elections law is to ensure that even those whose
voices wouldn't normally be heard have a fair shot during campaigns - a
goal that at first glance seems not only laudable, but in step with the
First Amendment. But its protections of free speech don't promise
anyone a platform or megaphone; this proposal attempts to.
It's too bad they didn't bother to look into how Clean Elections laws work: in order to
qualify for public funding, a candidate must go out and collect a
large number of small contributions (typically $5) to, as they say, "demostrate to large constituencies that they are deserving of support."
In fact, it's the private financing system this editorial defends that holds the flaws, where a candidate with a small pool of support--from a handful of very wealthy people--can run a competitive campaign and even overpower a more deserving candidate, simply because that other candidate can't marshal huge sums of money or isn't already a multimillionaire.
The Daily Times perhaps ought to
learn more about how these laws work.
Tags: clean elections, public financing, rhode island (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
