politicalhumanitarian

        The 2008 presidential elections is one of unparalleled firsts.  For the first time there is both a female and a minority candidate; it is the first time since 1928 there is no incumbent president or vice president running for office. Most importantly for the first time, both major party nominees are turning down public financing for both the primary and general elections resulting in an unprecedented campaigning expenditure of a billion dollars. Candidates are opting out of the public financing to participate in grand fundraising events to raise larger sums without any restrictions.  It is true that funding is an essential part of any successful campaign; however, this raises several ethical issues. In the absence of public funding, special interest groups such as the gambling industry, pharmaceutical industry, and large unions donate large sums, which raises the issue of whether or not there is corruption underlying the donations.  Furthermore, with the primary season being spread further from the general elections, candidates who announce their candidacy early are able to raise larger amounts than their counterparts who declare their candidacy later, disadvantaging candidates with an excellent record of accomplishments. Unfortunately, this causes the focus of campaigns to shift from the issues to money, advertising, and name recognition. Regulating campaigning expenditure and amount fundraised by means such as the public-fundraising system will help eliminate all the above issues and help candidates and the media focus on issues that are more relevant.

        The public-financing system, established in 1976 with the intention of decreasing corruption, promoting civic participation, and instilling a greater faith in the political process, ranges from providing direct subsidies to political parties to matching small private donations in exchange for guidelines regarding campaigning expenditure that a candidate must comply with. Candidates qualify to receive public funding by raising $5000 in 20 states; the government then matches any contribution that is up to $250. Candidates who turn down public funding can spend as much money as they can privately raise. The apparent ramifications of this are candidates become more focused on raising funds than addressing issues that are currently affecting our country, which results in the media and voters focusing more on which candidate has raised the most and who  has the most robust advertising. Taxpayers complain about the public-financing system because they do not want their taxes paying for presidential campaigns. Regardless, citizens pay for the candidate’s campaigns, directly or indirectly. According to the People’s Election Reform Coalition, the gambling industry’s contributions to campaigning increased by 400 percent in 2006. Gamblers are indirectly funding multimillion dollar campaigns. Without the public financing system the average citizen’s voice would be lost to special interest groups. If money was not so influential in campaigning, appealing to voters and their interests would be the main focus of elections not special interest groups. The drastic increase in financing for campaigns is primarily attributed to “front-loading,” which has come under closer scrutiny by supporters of the public financing system (Jost).

        California, the nation’s largest state with 37 million people and 55 electoral votes, moved its primaries from June to February 5, nine months prior to the November 4 general elections. Now with a strong bipartisan backing, the state government wants to have a more significant effect in the nomination process instead of having votes conceded to Democrats in the general elections and of having its primaries held a significant period after the opening of the presidential campaign in Iowa and
New Hampshire. Eight other states have followed suit, desiring a more prominent role in the nomination process, also scheduling their primaries for February 5. This trend of “front-loading” by no means is just a recent trend, but has been occurring for the past 20 years according to campaign-watchers and political analysts (Jost). With this increase in the number of states pushing up voting dates, the presidential election calendar stretches to span a greater amount of time. Instead of decreasing the importance of campaign fundraising, it increases the importance and forces candidates to begin campaigning earlier to raise funds in order gain public support (Jost).  

        This early start of presidential primaries favors frontrunners. Less known candidates have inadequate time to benefit from the Iowa and
New Hampshire events. Stephen Wayne, a professor of government atGeorgetown
University who for the past 20 years has written about presidential elections agrees stating, “The heavily front-loaded process in 2008 certainly aides the best-known and best-funded candidates.” The early primaries disadvantage candidates who are well qualified with strong resumes who may not have had sufficient time to raise a substantial sum of money in such a short time span for reasons such as joining the presidential race later. Therefore,, according to John Haskell, senior fellow at
Georgetown’s Government Affairs Institute, rather than voting for a candidate who is credible, voters choose contenders based on impressionistic qualities such as whether they are leading the polls (Jost).         Supporters of public financing continue to attempt to salvage the quickly deteriorating public-financing system. They can continue to attempt to coax candidates to participate in the public-financing system; however, the public financing system has been declining for the past eight years. Major-party presidential nominees did uphold the regulations of the public-financing system until the 2000 Republican primaries, when George W. Bush passed up public funds to raise $100 million.  Again, during the 2004, primary elections both John Kerry and President George W. Bush opted out of public financing, and now a similar trend is being observed with the upcoming primaries.  According to political analysts, this trend has marked the beginning of the downfall of the public-financing system (Jost).

        Some senators including Senator John Edwards have called for mandatory public financing and instilling limits for campaigning expenditures. Many still continue to lobby for this measure knowing that the Supreme Court in 1976 has already deemed campaign expenditure a protected form of free speech and mandatory public financing bills unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo (Kirkpatrick). Senator Schumer agrees that the 1976 ruling consequently thwarted all following attempts to limit the influence of money in campaigning, stating, “the widespread rejection of the system this year ‘vindicates’ the view that truly effective campaign finance restrictions will be impossible while Buckley v. Valeo stands” (Kirkpatrick). The current reform attempt is not to impose mandatory spending and fundraising limits, but instead to persuade candidates to accept the spending limits by offering them taxpayer-funded grants. Most candidates, however, rejected these grants because they could raise more money through private donations. The most logical solution, however, is to enforce specific dates for each election season and specify the earliest date contenders can announce their candidacy and the earliest date for primary elections. Limiting the time will push primaries back and restrict presidential contenders to declare their candidacy only after a certain date, which would consequently decrease the amount of time for each candidate to raise money. This would consequently require Candidates to focus directly on the voters and more pressing issues that plague our country rather than special interest groups. Candidates would be elected based on their views rather than how well their campaigning portrays them.

        In September of 1991, only one candidate had been announced for the Democratic ticket for the 1992 elections before Governor Bill Clinton of
Arkansas entered the race in October.  Now, four elections later, New York Senator Hilary Clinton formally entered the race for the Democratic ticket nearly two years prior to the elections.  Even before her announcement five Democratic and two Republican candidates had been announced (Jost).  The ramifications of the longer election season are apparent.  Money is becoming more of an influence in politics, and as a result, instead of focusing on the issues and political stances of candidates, voters and the media are becoming far more concerned with who has raised the most funds and has the best advertisement.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS