We've seen a lot of coverage of the public financing/campaign finance debate recently. The main drive has been from the Obama-McCain will they/won't they grist mill and the small donor "revolution" theory. Our colleague at the Brennan Center, Laura MacCleery posted a great blog on Huffington Post today about these issues:
But it will not help us move forward if enthusiasm for this influx of small donors obscures the facts. Money from large donors is not exactly going the way of the dinosaurs -- 79 bundlers for Obama have hit up their friends for aggregate contributions of $200,000 each. Still, it is certainly indisputable that having more small donations and less reliance on a tiny pool of wealthy people is a happy development in a democracy.
I very much agree. Small donors are good for democracy, it's a sign of ordinary people participating in the system, and these people are likely to get more involved in the grassroots. Just as politicians who raise money in the current system are not bad people (the vast majority are excellent people and in politics for the common good), people are generally good and are giving small donations with noble motivations. The problem is, the system is still broken. Money still buys power. Most people don't have money. Most people don't and can't give money.
The Obama campaign and, to a lesser degree, the Clinton campaign have raised impressive amounts in low dollar contributions from a lot of people. A recent Boston Globe article does a great job of illustrating how small donations given on a regular basis keep the campaigns going over the long-term, rather than large influxes early which can create a big splash but may lose momentum as donors max out. I am sure we will see more and new interesting developments in how this "revolution" is shaping the 2008 election.
In Laura MacCleery's words again:
In this fast-changing landscape, the future of campaign finance is now. The best of all possible worlds would be to combine the energy and enthusiasm of small donors with a public funding system that ensures that, in the end, the voices of those donors are the ones that will matter most to candidates.
Public financing of elections has an important role to play in this debate and in making sure that voters and the public interest are at the center of campaigns. I think clean elections are still the most important part of that debate. However, we clearly have something to learn from the power of online fundraising as it brings more people into the political process.
The Obama campaign has so significantly exceeded all the competition in this field, following Howard Dean's early momentum in 2003, that he has prompted strong adherence to the view that this is the future (or NOW, as MacCleery might say). I'm afraid that we might forget that most congressional races, not to mention McCain's campaign and the GOP and the many downticket races, are still being funded through leadership PACs, $2,300 a plate dinners and bundlers. Even Obama has scores of bundlers bringing in hundreds of thousands each.
I don't think this is a parallel system, parallel is the wrong relationship. Clean elections style public financing means that campaigns are fueled by money from ALL the people. They can spend their time working on building grassroots movements for change. To qualify for public financing, as in Maine, Arizona, 5 other states and two cities, you have to gather a set number of signatures and $5 contributions to show your legitimacy as a potential representatives of your community. That's a good time to show your support with your check book, or online bank account, but after that everybody's voice needs to count in the debate. Let's not even get into the problem with poor and rural communities having access to the internet at home or at all.
