Public Financing of Campaigns Wouldn't Make A Difference
Rhode Island currently offers public financing for statewide races. Some members of the General Assembly, including Rhoda Perry and Edith Ajello, want to extend public financing to General Assembly races. Under their plan, Rhode Island would provide up to $15,000 for House Candidates and $30,000 for Senate Candidates. In 2006, Rhode Island spent nearly $2 million on public financing. If this were extended to General Assembly races, this amount would rise by nearly $7 million.
I can understand why supporters would want to level the playing field, but I don't think public financing will make much of a difference. In the 2005-2006 legislative cycle, WIlliam Murphy spent more than $273,000. I doubt William Murphy or other legislators in the 6 figure club would take part in campaign financing, so their opponents will still be at a large disadvantage. As for those who spend less, their opponents will still be at a comparative disadvantage. For example, if an incumbent raises $10,000 and his opponent raises $2,000, matching would raise them to $20,000 and $4,000 respectively. The 5 to 1 spending ratio would still exist.
I doubt public financing will be passed. Besides the large expense, I don't see legislators approving a bill that would help their opponents. There's one way to encourage more participation among potential candidates, and that is for voters to thoughtfully consider their choices and do some research.
http://politicsblog.projo.com/2009/02/embargoed-until.html
I can understand why supporters would want to level the playing field, but I don't think public financing will make much of a difference. In the 2005-2006 legislative cycle, WIlliam Murphy spent more than $273,000. I doubt William Murphy or other legislators in the 6 figure club would take part in campaign financing, so their opponents will still be at a large disadvantage. As for those who spend less, their opponents will still be at a comparative disadvantage. For example, if an incumbent raises $10,000 and his opponent raises $2,000, matching would raise them to $20,000 and $4,000 respectively. The 5 to 1 spending ratio would still exist.
I doubt public financing will be passed. Besides the large expense, I don't see legislators approving a bill that would help their opponents. There's one way to encourage more participation among potential candidates, and that is for voters to thoughtfully consider their choices and do some research.
http://politicsblog.projo.com/2009/02/embargoed-until.html
As I take it, Damien offers two main criticisms of public financing: it costs too much and it won't be effective since participants will be at a financial disadvantage. Damien does, however, recognize the merits of a system like this, if only these two objections were answered. I'll reply to them in reverse order and look forward to his support!
First, candidates do participate. In Maine, for example, where this legislation has been enacted for nearly a decade, over 85% of the legislature chooses to opt into the system. Why does virtually every candidate choose to participate? Easy--their constituents demand it! Fair Elections systems remove the undue influence of private donations and disparities in fundraising from political office. It enables people with the best ideas to win out, not those with access to the largest sources of funding (and in a state like RI, the Republicans certainly stand to gain from that!). But won't candidates be put at a financial disadvantage for participating? Absolutely not! The difference between the current partial-matching system for RI statewide offices and the proposed Fair Elections system is that, under the proposed system, candidates who demonstrate significant grassroots support receive an initial grant equal to the average amount of money spent on a competitive race for that office in the past two years. In other words, candidates get an adequate chunk of change. Further, if a participating candidate runs against a non-participating candidate, the participating candidate receives a dollar-for-dollar match for all of the money his/her opponent raises above the participating candidate's initial grant (up to 3x the initial grant). Unlike in the current system where candidates agree to spending limits and have donations matched, this is a voluntary system for FULL public financing of elections.
But won't this cost an exorbitant amount? Nope. For about $7 million/year, this system can be enacted. Maine and Arizona both passed this legislation in years when their budget deficits were proportionately larger than the current RI deficit. Moreover, as more and more candidates participate, the system costs less and less. In Maine's 2006 elections, for example, despite a participation rate over 80%, the system cost only $2.30/voter. That's an investment in smart legislating that's well worth it. Finally, we're already paying for it. We pay for the cost of corruption in every earmark, pork-project, and wasteful social program that gets passed on Smith Hill. In Arizona, for example, the first Fair Elections-elected governor, Janet Napolitano, signed into law a bill that allowed the state to negotiate for bulk prescription drug prices. Previously, they'd been unable to do so because of the grip of the pharmaceutical lobby's financial influence. When signing the law, instantly saving the state $20 million, Napolitano said that she wouldn't have been able to sign the legislation were it not for the Fair Elections system.
Reply to this
Great post.
Reply to this
Excellent post.Thanks for sharing the useful information..
Reply to this
Hi,
Great article... i have been impressed by this site... keep up the good work....
Reply to this
What are the advantages and disadvantages for AMSC to forgo their debt financing and take on equity financing?
Reply to this
What are the products of micro finance?which is best instrument among them?and scopes in central India?
Reply to this
Hi,
How can I sell my business idea to some finance or insurance company in India?
Reply to this
I’ve been away for three weeks and I felt that I was missing your blog greatly.
Reply to this
Being a blogger myself, I can assure your readers that the content of your blog is just awesome.
Reply to this
Hi,
What are the best educational insurance plans in the UK?
Reply to this
Hi,
What action shall be taken if finance company deposits my cheque given for security reason?
Reply to this
Hi,
How can I sell my business idea to some finance or insurance company in India?
Reply to this
Very interesting article! So detailed information can not be found everywhere... thank you for the blog!
Reply to this
Hi,
Write up your thoughts upon the financing of such a venture in an appropriately formatted?
Reply to this
Judging by such a detailed review, I’ll bookmark the site for further research. Thanks God that there are people like you are.
Reply to this
Hi,
Good post....thanks for sharing.. very useful for me i will bookmark this for my future needed. thanks for a great source.
Reply to this
Good post….thanks for sharing.. very useful for me i will bookmark this for my future needed. thanks for a great source.
Thanks
SEO Services
Reply to this
Good post….thanks for sharing.. very useful for me i will bookmark this for my future needed. thanks for a great source.
Thanks
SEO Services
Reply to this
Hi,
How can I sell my business idea to some finance or insurance company in India?
Reply to this
yes it wouldnt make a difference but why spending so much money on these campaigns
grants blog
Reply to this
I really appreciate posts, which might be of very useful for beginners in blogging as I am. I already have a small collection of blog posts and other articles, from which I step by step learn various aspects of life. Thank you for your resource.
Reply to this
teşekkürler
Reply to this