A number of public interest groups are again calling for passage of HB 661, which would establish a system of publicly funded elections. Good idea, bad bill. I have trouble believing that everyone who is willing to call for the bill’s passage have really read or understood just what a bureaucratic nightmare this bill would create with its multiple layers of reporting requirements and threatened penalties, not only on those candidates who decide to take public funds but also on those who do not. The paperwork alone will swell the workload of the Campaign Spending Commission, which doesn’t have the resources to administer such a system.
So what’s the problem? Hawaii has a token public funding system in place in our current election law. It allows candidates to apply for a limited amount of public money if they agree to abide by an overall expenditure limitation. Reporting requirements are minimal. The system seems to work. Regulatory requirements aren’t excessive. But existing law caps the amount of public support available at just 15 percent of the expenditure limit, which is defined on a $ per voter basis without any regard to the real actual cost of campaigning. It maxes out at a couple of thousand dollars for a state House race, not enough to make any realistic difference.
But instead of bogging down in the complexities of HB661, it would be much simpler, more direct, and require much less bureaucratic overhead to simply amend our existing law to provide a realistic amount of public funding.
Want to provide a more realistic amount of public support so that more viable candidates and competitive campaigns can be run that would otherwise be the case? Then raise that 15 percent figure to 100 percent, or some point in between. Still doesn’t do the job? Then increase the matching funds from $1 of public funds for every $1 raised from individual sources to 2-1 or another ratio of choice.
Think that sounds overly generous? Then add further conditions that serve the public interest. Reduce the contribution limit for private contributions for publicly funded candidates. Provide a higher match for in-district contributions.
In the end, the magic number becomes simply how much this is all going to cost and whether we are willing to pay the freight.
Juggle the numbers either of two ways. Either set the maximum public funding per candidate and the level of matching funds so that they provide a realistic sum to run a viable and competitive campaign, then try to predict how many candidates would respond, and do the math to find the estimated total cost. Or set an overall public cost that you think we can live with and work back down to see whether it can realistically cover a full campaign. If not, scale back. Perhaps start by covering only certain offices (starting with the Big Island isn’t a bad idea, since they’re willing to take the plunge).
Going this route would take off the table any concerns, such as my own, of whether the system can work. It’s working now. It’s just underfunded and underpowered. This means the debate can center on the real issue–how much a publicly funded system would cost, and how much we’re paying direction and indirectly for our current pay-as-you-go system where lobbyists and corporations pay much of the freight and the public becomes deeply suspicious of the resulting political relationships.
In any case, that’s my two cents worth on the debate. You’ll hear from the coalition of groups pushing HB 661 at a press conference later this morning.
If you’re wondering about the nonprofit groups requesting legislative funding, the House of Representatives has made all grants in aid applications now available for public viewing online. Just click on the “Directory of received GIA applications” down at the bottom of that page, and you’ll get a long list of links to scanned copies of the applications. I wonder if those applying for the funds ever envisioned that their requests would be so publicly available?
Last week’s byline strike at the Honolulu Advertiser is written up in a New York Times “media talk” column today.
Conspiracy buffs take note: The Dallas Morning News is soliciting the public’s help in looking for juicy nuggets among the thousands of pages of recently released documents relating to the assassination of President Kennedy.
The great diet experiment goes on. As I’ve said, weekends seem quite long because we’re surrounded by begging cats. Here Ms. Wally appears convinced that the cast iron dutch oven is the repository for some fabulous feline feast. Actually, though, the overall experiment is going as well as could be expected.
I like the new look of your website very much!
I think your premise is flawed Ian. The current system, no matter how it is tweaked still relies on private contributions while the point of CleanElections is to rid the system of the monetary influence of those “special” interests who give elected officials money.
And you frame the question as primarily one of how much it would cost to fund elections publicly. But I think the jury is in on that one- any fair cost analysis shows the taxpayers pay hundreds of times more in corrupt appropriations and kickbacks- both the legal and legal kind- than the cost of publicly financing election campaigns would be. When a company or individual gives an office holder $2000 and gets a million dollar contract for half a million dollars worth of work, the expenditure is the very model of penny wise, pound foolish for the taxpayer..
The bureaucratic nightmare forecast for candidates in CleanElections doesn’t really exist- campaign treasurers are required to carefully and electronically document expenditures now and actually they would not have to track contributions any more which is a main source of headaches now. It has posed no problems for Maine and parts of Arizona where it has been successfully implemented for quite a few years now.