December 11, 2008

Campaign funding debated
A $6.5 million plan is considered for state races
by Jeff Mucciarone news@hippopress.com

The idea of publicly financing campaigns may be picking up steam in New Hampshire, but the opposition may be on the rise as well.

Proponents say a publicly funded system would level the playing field — allowing quality candidates of modest means to run competitive campaigns and reducing the influence of interest groups. They hope that a publicly funded system would allow candidates to spend more time campaigning rather fundraising.

Those against it say it won’t actually level the playing field or eliminate special-interest influence and the idea of using taxpayer money to fund campaigns rubs them the wrong way. 

The Commission to Study the Feasibility of Public Funding of State Election Campaigns, which met regularly from August to November, recently released its final report, where it proposes a “hybrid” system of financing that combines public money with unlimited individual small-dollar contributions, said Commission Chairman Bradford Cook. New Hampshire would be the fourth state to enact such a system, joining Arizona, Connecticut and Maine. The commission proposed publicly financing races for state senate, executive council and governor, according to the report.

“The advent of this kind of system increases the amount of people running by about 15 to 20 percent,” said Cathy Silber, New Hampshire Coalition for Public Funding Elections coordinator. “It makes for a more vital democracy — more participation.”

The system would cost about $6.55 million annually and the commission identified $5.585 million worth of revenue sources, the report indicated. New Hampshire is unique in that all of its state officeholders have two-year terms, which means elections happen more frequently, translating to more cost, Cook said.

“What they’ve done is do a really good amount of research for legislators,” Silber said. “It’s up to them to see what they think will be most effective.”

The commission identified several sources of funding, including grants and voluntary donations, voluntary tax check-offs, designated license plates, criminal and civil fine surcharges, a lobbyist fee increase, a car rental tax increase, low-number license plate annual fee increase and auction of low-number license plates. Those sources would generate between $3.665 million and $5.585 million, the report indicated.

The commission also considered a surcharge on plastic bags at grocery stores and reinstitution of the Legacies and Succession tax. Cook said if either of those measures were to be taken, election funding should only receive a small portion of either. 

Those in the opposition, on a matter of principle, question the use of taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns.

“We don’t believe citizens should be forced to fund campaign ads for candidates that they fundamentally disagree with,” said Sean Parnell, President of the Center for Competitive Politics in Virginia. 

Parnell said good candidates — people who can speak coherently on the issues and who are respected within the community — will always have access to funds. He said advocates point to the level of participation as a measure of success for publicly funded programs. “All that means is that if government puts money on the table, politicians were willing to grab it off the table.”

Trial run
Given the current recession, commission members weren’t ready to say go ahead and fund a system right now. Instead, the commission suggested a pilot program, costing about $300,000 annually, where races for six state senate seats would use the system for up to three election cycles. That way, the legislature could determine if it will work on a broader scale, Cook said. (Silber said the legislature could consider the pilot program or the whole plan as soon as the next legislative session.)

“The public will learn about it,” Silber said. “Candidates will learn about it. That will pave the way for expanding it.”

“It keeps the idea alive,” Cook added.

The push for publicly funding elections comes as campaign costs in the Granite State continue to rise. In 2004 the most expensive executive council campaign cost $88,292, and two years later the priciest campaign topped out at $253,366. The average cost to run a state senate campaign in 2004 was $40,478, but that jumped to $54,643 in 2006, according to a release from Silber earlier this fall.

Under the commission’s proposal, executive council candidates and candidates for senate are limited to individual donations between $5 and $25. Executive council candidates must garner 500 individual contributions, while candidates for senator must garner 250. Gubernatorial candidates are limited to contributions between $5 and $100 and must get 2,500 individual contributions. Contributions would be set up on a matching ratio; candidates for senate and executive council would be matched 2:1 with public funds, while candidates for governor would be matched at 4:1, considering the varying costs in running reasonable campaigns for each office, the report indicated. In other words, a $25 donation to a senate campaign would end up netting the individual $75, whereas a $100 donation to a candidate for governor would bring in $500, the report said.

“It’s no cinch to get the small-dollar contributions,” Cook said. “The trigger is purposely difficult. You have to work. You have to engage people.”

All individual contributions must be from people living in New Hampshire, and half the donations must be from people living within the district in question. The system would be entirely voluntary so candidates would be free to opt out and try to raise as much funding as they could on their own, much as President-elect Barack Obama did during his successful campaign this fall, officials said.

If the senate candidate achieves the required donations, the maximum he or she would receive from the campaign system is $35,000. Executive councilors would be limited to $70,000 and gubernatorial candidates would be limited to $1.75 million. Candidates who win primary elections would receive a second grant following the primary. Senate candidates would receive $50,000, executive council candidates would receive $100,000 and candidates for governor would receive $2.25 million, the report said. Grants provided after the primary would not be given on a matching basis.

“This thing is evolving,” Silber said. “What’s exciting about New Hampshire is that it represents the absolute cutting edge of the model. What it does is recognize the importance, value and feasibility of small-dollar contributions.”

Parnell said the idea that publicly financing campaigns reduces or limits special-interest influence is simply wrong.

The requirement of a certain amount of small-dollar contributions allows special-interest groups to mobilize membership. For example, the person in charge of the National Rifle Association can no longer simply cut a big check to a particular candidate, but the group as a whole can push its membership to get behind a candidate with individual donations.

Silber doesn’t see that as a problem.

“I say they can do that right now,” Silber said. “Second, mobilizing membership is called organizing and every group can do it, and it’s a fine thing. We think organizing is a good thing, people coming together in a common interest is a good thing. Sitting behind a desk and writing a check is a bad thing.”

Silber also said the commission’s proposal would not allow candidate contributions to come from out-of-state sources.