With Barack Obama's decision to restrict both his campaign and the DNC from taking PAC's and lobbyists' contributions, he's indicated a willingness to change the campaign fundraising dynamic. That's an exciting step for someone on such a large stage as the presidential election -- and we can only hope that it portends a strong commitment to continuing to reform the system if he's elected.
But it's complicating affairs for other Democrats who feel they need to continue taking contributions from any source in order to afford to run a modern-day congressional campaign (h/t OpenLeft):
Sen. Barack Obama's ban on contributions from lobbyists and PACs has irritated Democratic lobbyists and fundraisers, who say that Democratic congressional candidates can't -- and won't -- turn their backs on such a steady stream of campaign cash.
"Quite honestly, we're taking what we can get," said a top aide to a House Democratic candidate facing a competitive race in November. "The amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock."
One obvious and well-worn point here is how expensive today's campaigns really are. If top operatives are admitting that they'll take money from literally "under every rock," can they possibly build voters' trust and avoid feeling an obligation to the donors who allow them to fund their race? Hard to imagine.
But the second critical piece here is the discomfort level. Already, candidates for federal seats are spending incredible amounts of time and energy fundraising (estimates are that it's 1/3 of their time), which most describe as the least fun part of the job. That's drudgery enough. But as the pressure mounts to limit contributions from PACs, lobbyists, or other groups deemed unseemly by the public, the time needed and the level of discomfort experienced by candidates will continue to skyrocket.
While I'm not rooting for greater discomfort for our candidates and elected officials, there is a benefit: it makes public funding more and more attractive. Not only do publicly funded candidates in Maine and Arizona spend substantially less time fundraising than their state legislator counterparts in other states, but they eliminate any appearance of 'corrupting' campaign contributions. As more and more sources of campaign funds become suspicious in the public eye -- combined with ever-increasing costs of campaigns, and thus the need for even MORE money -- the appeal of no-strings-attached public money will bring some needed sanity and trust to the whole campaign system.
That may not be Obama's goal, but it's another benefit for the long term health of our campaign finance system and thus our democracy.
