Just $6 Per Person
There are a lot of problems with our current political system, for which there is no silver bullet solution. There are, however, many things that could be done to improve the situation. It would be an improvement if we got the media out of the role of running candidate debates, for instance.
There is wide agreement that it would be a huge improvement if we could eliminate, or at least minimize, the influence of big money on both the election of candidates and on their performance in office once elected. We have a number of campaign finance laws on the books right now, but there is disagreement as to their effectiveness, and court challenges to campaign finance law restrictions are a regular part of our political landscape.
Many people feel that rather than tinker with campaign finance laws we should simply begin public financing of elections. Two states, Maine and Arizona, already offer public funding as an option for candidates for legislative and certain statewide offices. They have done so since the 2000 election.
A Government Accounting Office study of the 2000 and 2002 elections in Maine and Arizona was inconclusive as to the effects of public funding of campaigns in those two states. It will be difficult and take time to measure the effects of public funding. How do we determine if the quality – whatever that means – of candidates improve, or if they make better decisions once in office? Not easy to do, but the answers are important and over time they will become evident in both Maine and Arizona.
The movement toward public financing of elections seems to be growing, led in large part by N.H.’s own John Rauh, founder and president of Americans for Campaign Reform. ACR figures that for just $6 per citizen we could have public financing of all federal elections. For more information, visit ACR’s aptly-named website, www.just6dollars.org.
The only fly in the ointment is that very rich candidates can, under Maine and Arizona rules, opt out of public financing. I would favor laws to prohibit that from happening, although it is certain such laws would be challenged on constitutional grounds. I would argue that laws designed to level the playing field between candidates for office are not restrictions of free speech.
