This time around Mr. Obama is raising more money than Mr. Dean, much of it on the Internet and much of it the old-fashioned Democratic way, in Hollywood and Manhattan. But Mr. Obama is Mr. One-Off, a unique, inspirational figure and, thus far at least, not one whose path can be followed by ordinary politicians. What he has accomplished is extraordinary when you think of the Hillary machine he is up against, but his success does not demonstrate that our worries about the influence of big money in politics should be considered a thing of the past.
The mention of public financing drives at least half the population up a tree, yowling that they do not want their hard-earned money going to some slimy politicians, etc., etc. So how do you get enough of the public to agree to have some of their hard-earned money diverted to a politician whom large chunks of the electorate abominate or have never heard of when they’d rather see their charitable contributions go to the sick or the handicapped?
Bruce Ackerman, a law professor at Yale, has come up with an idea that might possibly sell itself. He proposes to give every eligible voter a $25 election credit. (The money comes from the U.S. Treasury, it goes without saying.) The credit can only be spent as a campaign contribution to a federal candidate who has met some kind of benchmark qualification, such as number of petition signatures.
The way I imagine the scheme would work is that the recipient may give all the money to the candidate of his or her choosing or break it up into small sums to give to several candidates, provided they are running in a federal election. The scheme does not erase the objection that taxpayer money is being used, but at least people cannot say that “my tax money is being used to finance the campaign of a candidate I hate.” Voters get to choose who will be the beneficiaries of their money.
Mr. Ackerman estimates that if everyone eligible for an election credit were to use it, the total amount would come to about $3 billion, or about three times what it is estimated will be spent by candidates in next year’s election.
It’s either that or some other public financing plan, or we’re back to trying to breathe life into another thalidomide baby.
Follow Nicholas von Hoffman via RSS.
