Last Monday, the editors at the Chicago Sun-Times wrote in favor of the Fair Elections Now Act, the public financing bill introduced in March by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). The editorial did two things very well.
First, it outlined the problems with the current system of funding federal campaigns, including the enormous costs, the disproportionate influence of special interests groups, and the loss of public confidence in the system. The editors rose to the first challenge of convincing people that public financing is a good thing by presenting the many flaws with a privately financed system. Second, the editors helped to quell some fears and misperceptions of public financing, fears that they admitted to having themselves.
The comprehensive and accurate overview of the legislation focuses in part on the necessary "seed money" to qualify a candidate for public funds.
[Candidates] would also have to raise $5 each from a minimum number of residents. That threshold, which in Illinois would be 11,000 for the Senate and 1,500 for the House, attempts to make sure only viable candidates are tapping into the taxpayer pool. It addresses one of our fears about the proposal -- that public dollars would go to fringe candidates whose extreme views would otherwise prevent them from raising private dollars and mounting a serious campaign.
The editorial is combating misperceptions about public financing in the most effective way possible: cold, hard facts about what this bill would do and why it is absolutely necessary in a time of out-of-control campaign costs and corruption.
I think we can expect more editorial boards from papers all across the country to offer their opinions about public financing. Yesterday, the Post-Tribune in Gary, Indiana also editorialized in favor of public financing. The editors there see the Fair Elections Now Act as finally breaking the long spell of inaction that has typically characterized discussions of campaign finance reform.
Both editorials do a good job of mentioning that if a candidate's opponent does not opt into the public financing system --because, remember, the system is voluntary--"fair-fight funds" would be available to increase the publicly financed candidate's funds by up to 200 percent. To those skeptics who doubt that anyone would opt into public funds, the editors at the Post-Tribune point out that, "Importantly, voters would know where each candidate received his or her money." The advantages of taking private funds, if there are any, are far outweighed by the advantage of running a clean campaign with clean money in the eyes of the voters.
Just something to think about. But see more for yourself, including Sen. Dick Durbin's speech on the Senate floor here.
