Politics Bailing Itself Out: April Fools?

Sen. Dick Durbin filed a bill yesterday that would provide taxpayer financing of congressional campaigns. Durbin should have waited until today — April Fools Day — to unveil this silly idea.

The proposal would limit donors to $100, and the government would provide matching funds at a 4-1 ratio. Rosy estimates by supporters indicate it could cost taxpayers $700 to 850 million per year.

Durbin’s main argument for the bill is that it would protect incumbents from the messy task of actually convincing donors and constituents to support their campaigns with donations. Instead, the government would hand out welfare checks to candidates (this is a huge boon to incumbents, who enjoy the benefits of an established donor network, high name recognition, regular media coverage, franked mail and other perks).

Advocates of these schemes are unable to offer evidence demonstrating that taxpayer-financed campaigns or other limits on campaign contributions reduce corruption. Despite all the heated rhetoric about the evils of money in politics, research by the Center for Competitive Politics has shown that many states without ‘clean elections’ programs or other stringent campaign finance limits are among the best-governed and least-corrupt states in America.

In truth, nearly all of the claims made by advocates of taxpayer financed political campaigns have been discredited. Among the most glaring of falsehoods promoted by advocates is that these schemes reduce the ability of so-called special interest groups to help candidates get elected. In reality, these schemes lead candidates simply to outsource to well-organized interest groups the task of collecting the many small contributions that lead to a jackpot of taxpayer dollars.

Support for the presidential public financing system has steadily plummeted, as the number of Americans designating their tax dollars to the program has shrunk from 28.7 percent in 1980 to 8.3 percent in 2007.

The decision to support and associate with a political campaign provides a vital indicator of the viability and strength of a candidate. Forcing taxpayers to fund candidates they disagree with in an effort for the government to level the speech playing field tarnishes the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Durbin and his allies will need more than loaded rhetoric to convince a skeptical public that Congress should provide a bailout for itself in the form of subsidies for campaign bumper stickers, negative TV ads and high-priced consultants.