Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva is co-sponsoring the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, which would implement a voluntary system of publicly funded campaigns for congressional contests.
The bill, HR1614, was introduced in the U.S. House on March 20 by Massachusetts Democrat John Tierney and 40 co-sponsors.
Grijalva, who represents Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, hailed the proposed measure as a voluntary method for candidates to run campaigns without the reliance on contributions from influential private interests.
“The cornerstone of any substantive reform effort must be the establishment of a voluntary public financing of all federal elections, a system in which candidates would have strong incentives to replace private money with public funding to affect meaningful change in Washington,” said Grijalva.
Grijalva’s press release outlined the bill’s “key objectives,” which include an elimination of “perceived and real conflicts of interest caused by the financing of campaigns by private interests” and the allowing of individuals to run for office “regardless of their economic status or access to large contributors.”
The legislation makes changes to the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, the Communications Act of 1934, and postal laws that currently prohibit mass mailings during primary and general elections periods by congressmen seeking re-election.
HR 1614, if passed, would create qualifying contribution requirements, direct the Federal Elections Commission to certify publicly funded candidates, establish expenditure limits, and establish a treasury for congressional candidates.
The legislation also requires telecommunication broadcasters to provide free air time for candidates and reduced rates for broadcast advertisements at set time frames during primary and general election periods.
An exact appropriation for the legislation is not contained in the bill, but it does demand necessary funding “as may be needed” to carry out its provisions, said a staffer of Tierney.
Fair Elections Now Act
A similar piece of legislation, The Fair Elections Now Act, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
It includes an estimated appropriation of $1.47 billion to cover the costs of campaigns for House and Senate races, said Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a Washington D.C.-based campaign finance reform advocacy group.
Nyhart said he supports the measures, which would bring about national campaign laws similar to ‘Clean Elections’ systems implemented in Maine and Arizona. Publicly funded campaign systems free candidates from time-consuming fundraising, help officials vote their conscience, and open democracy to all types of people, he said.
“In a democracy each person should be represented equally and in the fundraising race whoever writes the biggest checks gets all of the attention,” said Nyhart. “When money is speech, people with less money have less speech.”
A press release by Durbin, once an opponent of publicly funded elections, indicates he was inspired to create the legislation by the ever-increasing costs of running campaigns.
“Today the amount of money spent in top 10 competitive Senate races averages $34 million per campaign, double what it was just four years ago,” Durbin said. “It takes a mountain of money just to lose a Senate campaign.”
Reformers’ logic that increased campaign costs are evidence of the need of campaign finance restrictions and public campaign funding are way off base, said Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission and an opponent of most reforms.
“The mere fact that we spend more money on things doesn’t mean there’s a problem,” he said. “It’s a sign of prosperity, that we care and we want to be involved.”
Smith contends public campaign financing systems like Arizona’s do nothing to solve potential corruption of officials or political inequalities. Endorsements, the skill level or skill sets of a candidate’s consultants and volunteers will play a large role no matter what funding mechanism fuels a campaign, he said.
Smith, the author of “Unfree Speech,” said he is particularly bothered by the idea of free or reduced broadcasting rates for candidates because the public would still have to pay “at a premium” to dispel false claims by a candidate, promote a favorite or get their point across.
“It shows just how candidate-centric these guys are,” said Smith. “They think the whole world revolves around them. Well, that’s just not true.”
Inflation, new technological advancements such as caller identification, Internet and cable television programming with more than 100 channels are all making campaigns more expensive, he said.
“It’s a battle between the public that doesn’t want to be bothered and the candidates who want to bother them,” said Smith.