By Carter Bundy
Anyone with the good fortune of traveling to or studying other countries has had the dark, strange, but satisfying experience of learning that people everywhere, regardless of system of government, believe that their politicians are corrupt and do the bidding of more powerful people.
It’s satisfying because there’s something comforting in knowing that we’re not alone.
It’s dark, though, because government should, and can, represent the best of what we want. After all, we get to decide who goes to
The sentiment is also strange because those who do the voting complain about the results. The most commonly accused culprits for this oddity are mysterious entities called “special interests.”
Of course, one person’s special interest is another’s strong voice for (insert good word here: “justice,” “freedom,” “morality” and “opportunity” all come highly recommended). The one thing most “special interests” do have in common, though, is that they’re all perceived to have big money behind them. Can, or should, anything be done?
Public financing to the rescue. Maybe.
There’s one solution that advocates say permits free speech while pushing, but not forcing, big money to the side: public financing. The beauty of public financing is that it most commonly is voluntary, meaning you’re not really squelching anyone’s speech.
Further, if done Albuquerque-style, independent expenditures are countered by the release of matching monies to participating candidates who didn’t benefit from the IEs. People on all sides will tell you that
The big question is whether public financing is just another well-intentioned attempt to do the Sisyphean, or whether it’s the strongest way to take on a Herculean task.
Skeptics: it’s Sisyphean
In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was punished for being deceitful by spending eternity pushing a huge rock up a hill, only to lose control of it and have to start all over again. Some argue that campaign finance reform is a similarly futile, impossible Sisyphean task, where no matter what reforms are made, ultimately nothing will change.
The skeptics have some strong points. Ban all direct contributions of over, say, $100. Further stipulate that a matching fund system could be fairly administered, resulting in no election-related IEs.
Would you really eliminate money from politics? Heck no. My favorite example is something the National Rifle Association proposed a few years ago. Anticipating even stricter limits on their participation in elections, the NRA floated the idea of purchasing a number of media outlets.
What would stop a wealthy person or entity from buying a major media outlet, airing popular programming most of the time, and interrupting the programming with “news” coverage with a distinct, even explicit, political slant, particularly at election season?
Heck, Rupert Murdoch and the GOP have already done it with Fox News Channel, with ex-GOP leader Roger Ailes running a tight message machine closely tending to the needs and desires of one party.
Game and set, Sisyphus.
Hercules strikes back
Many public financing advocates are aware of the whack-a-mole nature of trying to eliminate big money from politics. They counter, though, that the task is hard, but not futile. Herculean, not Sisyphean. Not only can it be done, but it has been done.
They point to
At a minimum, public financing moves the big-bucks boys to significantly alter their current ways of doing business, lessening the impact of their money in the short- to medium-term.
Can you imagine the hassle and effort involved in trying to buy a bunch of media outlets and develop programming just to influence elections once every four years? It can be done, but what a logistical and resource-intensive nightmare.
Game and set, Hercules.
And the winner is…
After a period of time, wealthy interests will largely adapt to any new system.
On the other hand, even if some big money figured out a way to beat the system after a few years, public financing would allow incumbent legislators, mayors, governors and other electeds to focus on the job for which they were hired.
How nice would it be to not have to fundraise? Plus, most public financing proposals have some threshold of signatures and/or small contributions, meaning politicians would have to get out and listen to the concerns of thousands of constituents. That has to be better for democracy than dialing for big dollars.
So is campaign finance reform an impossible, Sisyphean task, or merely Herculean? If you want a perfect system, well, yeah, you’re always going to rolling that rock up the hill. But if the question is whether you can limit big bucks in politics without eroding free speech, the answer is, “yes.” Tough, but it can be done.
The Governor’s Task Force on Ethics Reform recommended this year the adoption of public financing for all statewide races, and recommended “that future consideration be given to extending the existing voluntary public financing system to district court elections.”
Hopefully, sooner rather than later, New Mexican legislators can take on the Herculean task of joining
Game, set and match, Hercules.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in
A prior version of this column incorrectly stated that the task force recommended expansion of public financing only to district court races.