Congressman wants taxpayers to fund his campaign

Published on February 8, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Taxpayer Financing

Representative Chris Murphy (D, CT-5) is tired of asking citizens to support his campaign. So, in a recent op-ed Rep. Murphy advocates for Congress to pass an enormous "welfare for politicians" scheme to directly deposit taxpayer dollars into the campaign war chests of politicians like him.   The cost of this recurring earmark is estimated by its supporters to cost $1.8 billion per year. In return for all this money, Rep. Murphy will be freed of all his fundraising chores while voters will be left with the status quo.  The only difference will be that incumbent officeholders are even more entrenched and citizen voices are cut out of the debate.

Government-financed elections are designed to limit the amount of money that can be spent on political campaigns.  The spending limits apply directly to participating candidates and employ deceptive matching fund provisions designed to muzzle advocacy efforts by grassroots organizations.

While limiting the amount of money that can be spent on political campaigns appeals to some, a closer inspection reveals the negative impact that such speech limits have on our democracy.

Campaign money is spent directly communicating with voters.  While voters may not always like all the messages they receive, they are a vital aspect of ensuring an informed electorate.  Limiting the amount of money spent on campaigns by definition restricts the amount of information available to voters.  The government has no business deciding when citizens have heard enough.

Moreover, by limiting campaign speech, government financed elections can give a significant advantage to current officeholders.  Incumbents generally begin elections with a significant advantage in name recognition and are able to draw attention to themselves by the nature of their office.  Often, the only way for a challenger to compete with their opponent's "free" media is to outspend the incumbent on advertising getting his or her message to the voters.

By capping the amount of money challengers can spend getting out their message campaign, taxpayer funding schemes can severely handicap the challenger's odds of success. Judging by other incumbent-protecting campaign finance "reforms", it is unlikely that incumbents would set spending limits high enough to provide challengers a real opportunity to unseat them. Moreover, public resistance to such a political welfare program is likely to increase the more generous the funding.

A study by the federal government of taxpayer-financed elections in Arizona, lauded by many as the model for publicly financed campaigns, found that access to public funding did not affect incumbent reelection rates in 2000 or 2002.  Moreover, using the same methodology reveals that incumbent reelection rates actually rose in 2004!

Government-financed elections also will not cure what Rep. Murphy deems to be the current system's most-pressing ill -decreased confidence in government.  In fact, government-financing may only exacerbate that perceived problem.  A study by political scientists David Primo and Jeffrey Milyo shows that government-financing has "a statistically negative effect on public views about whether 'people have a say' in their government or whether 'officials care.'"  

Rep. Murphy is also wrong to assert that "big campaign donors control too much of the agenda."  Rep. Murphy spent nearly $2.5 million on his 2006 general election campaign.  That means, by law, no single donor could have contributed more than two-tenths of one percent of Murphy's fundraising total.

Moreover, contrary to Rep. Murphy's implicit assertion, campaign contributions do not "corrupt" the political process or alter legislative outcomes. Instead, research by professors John Lott and Stephen Bronars found that campaign contributions follow ideology and legislators vote according to their own beliefs, the beliefs of their constituents, and the views of their party.

The fact that campaign contributions do not buy votes should not be the least bit surprising.  After all, if a contribution really could change the way a Congressman votes you'd have interest groups giving to candidates who have traditionally voted against them.  But of course, you never see a pro-life organization giving to a pro-choice candidate or vice versa.  The reason is simple -   contributions go to support candidates who best reflect the values of the contributor.

Government-financed campaigns would force citizens to support candidates with whom they disagree, or may even despise.  Fortunately, our current, voluntary system allows citizens to support candidates that they believe in without underwriting the campaign costs of their opponent.

Government-financed elections are an expensive and undemocratic affront to First Amendment rights.  Citizens should be free to choose what candidates they want to support and candidates should not be limited by the government on how much they can say.