# Let's explore the wisdom of publicly funded elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825 "2014-01-14T22:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/1 "2014-01-14T22:59:01Z")
I have heard that one way to limit the negative effects of lobbying in the U.S. would be to publicly fund elections. What are the downsides to this plan? Would it be legal under the First Amendment? Thanks, Rob ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/2 "2014-01-14T23:06:30Z")
Of course it would be legal under the First Amendment. The trickier question is whether it would be constitutional to forbid **private** funding in **addition** to the public funding. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/3 "2014-01-14T23:26:05Z")
Assuming you mean a system that disallows private contributions: One potential downside is in granting an (additional) advantage to the incumbent. Because the incumbent’s name and persona are normally going to be better known than a challenger’s (excepting independently-famous candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sonny Bono), if the opportunity to overcome this disadvantage through spending more money campaigning is removed, then incumbents will win a larger share of elections than they already do. Whether this is an acceptable trade-off is a complex question. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/4 "2014-01-15T16:40:38Z")
Elections in the UK are publicly funded, are they not? If so, does the system there overwhelmingly favor the incumbent? I am not quite sure how the system works in the UK, but I was under the impression that you vote more for a party than a particular candidate. Is that accurate? Thanks, Rob ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/5 "2014-01-15T16:43:51Z")
Whenever a discussion like this comes up, I find that most folks are blissfully unaware as to [how much of an elected official’s time is spent in fundraising](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html): > [@](#): > > The daily schedule prescribed by the Democratic leadership contemplates a nine or 10-hour day while in Washington. Of that, four hours are to be spent in “call time” and another hour is blocked off for “strategic outreach,” which includes fundraisers and press work. An hour is walled off to “recharge,” and three to four hours are designated for the actual work of being a member of Congress – hearings, votes, and meetings with constituents. If the constituents are donors, all the better. The presentation assured members that their fundraising would be closely monitored; the Federal Election Commission requires members to file quarterly reports. > > Congressional hearings and fundraising duties often conflict, and members of Congress have little difficulty deciding between the two – occasionally even raising money from the industry covered by the hearings they skip. It is considered poor form in Congress – borderline self-indulgent – for a freshman to sit at length in congressional hearings when the time could instead be spent raising money. Even members in safe districts are expected to keep up the torrid fundraising pace, so that they can contribute to vulnerable colleagues. In an atmosphere like this–cold calling potential donors, glad-handing fat-cats, flying to another campaign event–that some officials see large lobbyist contributions as a way to, say, get a weekend back with their family instead of spending it pressing the flesh at another rubber chicken dinner? I don’t really know if public financing is the way to go, but IMO folks should have all the facts before deciding one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/6 "2014-01-15T16:55:29Z")
US presidential elections were publicly funded from 1976-2008. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > One potential downside is in granting an (additional) advantage to the incumbent. This is particularly at issue in elections for the House. Presidential elections will generate lots of publicity for the challenger, but individual congressional elections much less so. > [@CJJ](#): > > Whenever a discussion like this comes up, I find that most folks are blissfully unaware as to [how much of an elected official’s time is spent in fundraising](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html): Note that this is a consequence of campaign finance restrictions put in place thus far. Because an official cannot receive contributions from any particular individual or corporation above certain limits, it’s necessary to spend more time reaching more individuals and corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/7 "2014-01-15T17:06:00Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Elections in the UK are publicly funded, are they not? [Per this article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6065322.stm), the public funding is pretty limited in scope: > [@](#): > > So, the UK doesn’t have state funding for parties, then? > > Actually, yes it does. Opposition parties receive money to pay for administration and other costs. Otherwise, the ruling party - with its access to the instruments of government, such as the civil service - would have an unfair advantage, it is argued. In the second quarter of 2006, the Tories were given £1.15m by the state and the Lib Dems got £456,000. Based on [this article](http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/world/global-campaign-finance/), it private funding is available, and its dominance is an issue: > [@](#): > > While the trajectory for spending in U.S. elections is soaring, total party spending in the 2010 general election in the United Kingdom was actually 26% less than in 2005. > > But despite the fact party spending dropped to $49 million, the absence of limits on the amount individuals or corporations can donate has contributed to the ongoing erosion of public confidence in the political process in the UK, according to one watchdog organization. > > “When donors are making contributions exceeding £20,000 ($31,000) – and some are making donations well over £250,000 ($390,000) – it’s perfectly understandable you don’t give away that kind of money without expecting something in return,” Chandu Krishnan, executive director of TI UK. > > In November 2011, a UK advisory body recommended increased public funding as one way to avoid future scandals and limit the influence of big donors in elections, but the three main political parties rejected the proposal. Campaign spending in the UK is subject to [some limits](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19052054) that the U.S. doesn’t have: > [@](#): > > It could hardly be more different in the UK where airtime for campaign ads is free - indeed you not allowed to buy it - and tightly limited. > > In the last general election, the two main parties were allowed four or five party political broadcasts each in England, and six between Scotland and Wales - compared to hundreds of thousands of ads in the US. Since television advertising is a major expense, prohibiting the buying of it radically alters the shape of campaign finance in the UK vs. the U.S. And, it should be noted that the U.S. does have [some public financing in some elections](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_campaigns), so it’s not totally alien to us. > [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > If so, does the system there overwhelmingly favor the incumbent? I am not quite sure how the system works in the UK, but I was under the impression that you vote more for a party than a particular candidate. Is that accurate? > > Thanks, > Rob [Less so than the U.S.](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379412001485), but as the British financing model isn’t all that different from the American one, I don’t think it’s that conclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/8 "2014-01-15T17:25:27Z")
My issue is determining how to choose who to fund, and by how much. The California recall election brought out a ton of candidates for governor, and I can only imagine what would happen if anyone could get a piece of the funding pie. I might run for office if I was between jobs or retired, just to use the money to pay for travels around giving speeches. > **[California gubernatorial recall election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election)** > > California gubernatorial recall election may refer to: > [@](#): > > Notable candidates > The October 7 recall election had many declared candidates, several of whom are prominent celebrities. In total, there were 135 candidates who qualified for the ballot in this election, including four candidates who obtained at least 1% of the vote: > Democratic > Cruz Bustamante, lieutenant governor > Green > Peter Camejo, 2002 Green Party candidate for governor > Republican > Tom McClintock, State Senator > Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hollywood actor ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/9 "2014-01-15T17:25:29Z")
I imagine every conceivable aspect of this was covered at some point in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653227) thread of mine from 2012 (it ran to 7 pages). ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/10 "2014-01-15T21:44:21Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > My issue is determining how to choose who to fund, and by how much. The California recall election brought out a ton of candidates for governor, and I can only imagine what would happen if anyone could get a piece of the funding pie. I might run for office if I was between jobs or retired, just to use the money to pay for travels around giving speeches. Wasn’t Gary Coleman a candidate that year? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/11 "2014-01-15T21:57:42Z")
Why should I pay taxes so that politicians can apply for their jobs? I’d rather restrict both private and public funding. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/12 "2014-01-15T22:19:23Z")
Another issue is that this gives the advantage to incumbents, who can get their message out without spending campaign funds just by going out in public. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/13 "2014-01-15T23:35:20Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > My issue is determining how to choose who to fund, and by how much. The California recall election brought out a ton of candidates for governor, and I can only imagine what would happen if anyone could get a piece of the funding pie. I’'m very much in favor of public funding of elections, but this is a tough nut to crack in a fair way. My general thought is that candidates should be able to raise a respectable amount of private money before they qualify to appear on the ballot – say, $200,000 for a congressional election, or something like that. To qualify for the ballot, they should have to gain a pretty sizable number of signatures. Say, 15,000 in a typical congressional district. Once you qualify, somehow I think metering out funds so that candidates who are polling very poorly closer to the election don’t get as much money as top contenders do would also be fair. But you’re right, it’s a difficult issue once you start digging into it. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/14 "2014-01-24T01:39:52Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Why should I pay taxes so that politicians can apply for their jobs? I’d rather restrict both private and public funding. This. Why pay so they can tax me more? Lobbying may not be the great devil that it’s made out to be. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/15 "2014-01-24T02:34:59Z")
I’m seeing it more this way: there might come a time when no one in the private sector thinks of funding anyone. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/16 "2014-01-24T02:46:59Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > Why should I pay taxes so that politicians can apply for their jobs? I’d rather restrict both private and public funding. > > This. Why pay so they can tax me more? Lobbying may not be the great devil that it’s made out to be. It’s not? It’s been said that in the former Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism, but in the United States, capitalism triumphed over democracy. The Citizens United decision pretty much formalized the _de facto_ ruling corporate oligarchy. Nothing – and I mean **nothing** – can be legislated in this country that disturbs the dominant corporate interests – not meaningful health care reform, not meaningful regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, not meaningful environmental regulation, not meaningful public broadcasting – nothing. Democrats are closet corporatists pretending to be populists, and Republicans just flaunt corporatism as a virtue. No one has a hope in hell of holding any position of power without corporate support and consequently being totally beholden to their sponsors. Want to rethink that statement? The question of public funding isn’t to replace private funding altogether, it’s to provide a limited source of campaign funding that, in conjunction with limitations and transparency on private funding, might offer some glimmer of hope of politicians actually being accountable to the public interest instead of being completely beholden to their corporate masters. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/17 "2014-01-24T15:34:26Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > I’m seeing it more this way: there might come a time when no one in the private sector thinks of funding anyone. You think there will come a time when the private sector ceases to be self-serving? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/18 "2014-01-24T16:04:46Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > I have heard that one way to limit the negative effects of lobbying in the U.S. would be to publicly fund elections. What are the downsides to this plan? Would it be legal under the First Amendment? My first thought is that general elections should always be publicly funded. I’d rather have the voter rolls and vote counts be kept under strict control of the state. For party primary elections, I could see requiring the parties to pay for them. But I think there’s a public interest in having parties have public elections rather than closed-door selections of candidates. So publicly funded elections can be justified. And some states (like here in California) in longer have party primaries, but free-for-all primaries where the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, face off in the general. This type of primary should be publicly funded just like the general elections. I think the real problem with publicly funded elections are special elections, which are held outside the regular schedule. And typically have very low turn-out. These are a waste of money and with the low-turn are not very democratic. I’d rather these not be held at all (that is, combine it with next regularly scheduled election), so that funding is not an issue. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ And reading this thread further, I see people are mostly talking about publicly funded campaigns, rather than elections. There’s too much conflation between an election (where people vote) and a campaign (where people are asked to vote a certain way). In principle, I think campaigns should be privately funded by those who have an interest in it. But I can see a public interest in giving a stronger voice to campaigns that are popular, but not well funded. My main concern is that public campaign funding would give too much power to political parties. That is, if public money is given to a campaign simply because of its party affiliation, rather than polling. I don’t like how the major parties make it difficult for other parties to get on the ballot. If they can also limit campaign funding to other parties as well, it’ll increase the major parties’ power too much. Along with public campaign funding, there should be regulations on the media where advertising is bought, to prevent exploitative pricing. That goes both ways: media should charge fair prices, but they should get a fair price. Free air time is effectively taxing media at an unfair rate. This regulation should only apply to campaign ad buys made exclusively with public money. Let the market find its own prices for ad buys that use any amount of private money. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/19 "2014-01-24T20:32:26Z")
I think most responders interpreted the OP as being about campaign funding, as did I. Perhaps it wasn’t, but that’s certainly the hot-button issue in the US today. > [@Pleonast](#): > > My main concern is that public campaign funding would give too much power to political parties. That is, if public money is given to a campaign simply because of its party affiliation, rather than polling. I don’t like how the major parties make it difficult for other parties to get on the ballot. A valid concern, but it’s easily managed by requiring a minimum number of voter endorsements to qualify for funding. Basically all one is trying to do is distinguish serious candidates from members of some Pythonesque “Extremely Silly Party”. The two-party duopoly is indeed a problem but public campaign funding need not make it worse and might even help diversify the political landscape. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/20 "2014-01-27T18:01:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I think most responders interpreted the OP as being about campaign funding, as did I. Perhaps it wasn’t, but that’s certainly the hot-button issue in the US today. The funding of the elections has been coming up regular in California. When the proposition to change the primary elections to a top-two regardless of party was on the ballot, the parties complained that it gave control of their candidates to the public at large, instead of their members. The counterpoint was that the public at large was paying for the election. And it’s not a trivial cost–I’d guess many tens of millions for a statewide election in California. And recently the issue came up in the LA school board about whether to hold a special election for a vacant seat or make an appointment. It’ll cost several million dollars to hold that election. So when thinking about publicly funded campaigns, it’s useful to think about how much we’re already paying for the elections. > [@wolfpup](#): > > A valid concern, but it’s easily managed by requiring a minimum number of voter endorsements to qualify for funding. Basically all one is trying to do is distinguish serious candidates from members of some Pythonesque “Extremely Silly Party”. The two-party duopoly is indeed a problem but public campaign funding need not make it worse and might even help diversify the political landscape. I don’t know if it’s easily managed, but there’s nothing in principle preventing it. The problem is the two big parties are very aggressive in defending their perks. It’s generally only possible to remove them via voter initiative. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825.md?page=2)