Head to Head: Public funds needed

Public funding for congressional campaigns is needed now more than ever. More than $318.4 million was raised and $142.3 million spent as of March 2000 on the congressional elections alone across the United States, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.\n"The additional activity represents a 37 percent increase in fund-raising and a 27 percent increase in spending," according to the Federal Election Commission. Polls show the public is troubled by the massive amounts spent on elections. By capping the funds available to candidates, these strikingly high expenditures will decline sharply. \nDemocracy is strongest with more participation from the public.\nDuring the past several decades, many have come to believe the effects of their votes have been eroded, largely through the influence of money in campaigns. Special interest groups, through their Political Action Committees (PACs), have seemingly managed to put a stranglehold on many elected officials and candidates. It is virtually impossible for a candidate in a contested race to compete successfully if his or her campaign lacks the monetary resources to run TV advertisements, buy campaign literature and yard signs and send mailings. \nUnder the current system, it is expensive to run for office. Accordingly, candidates are forced to accept almost any aid to remain viable candidates. \nNow is the time to enact meaningful campaign finance reform for all House and Senate races. Public funding for qualified candidates would keep special interest groups out of funding campaigns. \nHow Public Funding Would Work\nA candidate for the House would receive, for example, $300,000 for a House general election campaign. Senate candidates would receive around twice that, with the particular amount tied to the size of his or her state. No candidate would be permitted to raise his or her own funds for the campaign, with the exception of personal contributions from the candidate.\nThis reform measure would free all candidates to spend time talking to voters, not attending fund-raisers, making phone calls to potential contributors or sending mailers requesting financial support. Some have estimated this fund-raising to take half of a candidate's time. \nThe voters would have more contact with candidates, whom they knew were not being funded by special interest groups. \nThe candidates would be free to say what they wanted voters, not contributors, to hear. \nFunding required to support all campaigns for the House and Senate could easily be found in the Federal Government's budgets. One B2 bomber would cover the cost for two years. \nFuture Reform Efforts\nCampaign finance reform has, unfortunately, been placed on the back burner this election season. Both Sen. Bill Bradley and Sen. John McCain brought it to our attention early in the primary through bids for their parties' nominations. With their defeat, reform of our campaign finance laws has taken a backseat to other issues.\nBuilding on a traditionally Democratic issue, Vice President Al Gore promised in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last month that the first bill his administration sends to Congress will be on campaign finance reform. \nWhile publicly-funded campaigns are not likely in the near future, let's hope Gore and a Democratic majority in Congress will make some progress that will eventually lead to public funding.