For the same reason that your tax dollars support schools, airports, and scientific research, even though you aren’t a 3rd grader, an airline pilot, or a physicist. Public investments in those fields bring about real benefits to society, even though homeschoolers, those afraid of planes, and young-earth religious fundamentalists disagree with those programs.
Although I’m challenging the OP on some parts of his plan, in general I think public financing of campaigns make sense. It levels the playing field, opens up the field of candidates to those who don’t want to be degraded by having to pander to well-moneyed interest groups, and allows elected leaders to focus on their work, rather than their next campaign.
No thanks. I’d rather support scientific research than a political candidate. Seeing as how politicians can destroy society, wage wars, restrict rights and so forth and such, I’d rather not open that up to more corruption. I don’t want a popular movie star for a President.
Yes, and there are people who would rather not support scientific research. Just because you would prefer not to have your tax dollars going to some program or another doesn’t mean that there are not good reasons why that program is important to society.
Let’s say a young Earth creationist was on this board arguing that he doesn’t want his tax dollars going to science. What would you say to him? That scientific research benefits society? That even if he doesn’t support scientific research, tough titties, it is very important that we do it? That we’d be worse off without government spending money to help make scientific research more impartial, and that we’d be worse off if we simply left it up to the scientists paid by the Tobacco Institute to produce biased studies? Well, in effect, I’m saying the same to you. The drawbacks of the current campaign finance system are clear, and a public financing system – though difficult to make completely fair – is an important public interest and worthy of government investment.
And in any case, public financing would make the system LESS susceptible to corruption, not more.
Was I not clear enough? Government funds many things that some individuals oppose. Simply saying that “I don’t want my tax dollars going to ‘government program X’” isn’t a very good counter-argument to the societal benefits that various government programs produce. I have explained what benefits to society a public financing system would likely provide.
Let’s see: 435 US Reps. 4 Territorial delegates elected every two years. One third of the Senate up for re-election every two years, for another 33 races. Assuming just two candidates for each position. Every four years, another election for the Puerto Rico Resident Commisioner, and the Presidential election. By my figures, that’s $9.4 Billion every two years. And I expect that any such law would be written to eviscerate any funding at all for third party candidates.
On the one hand, I know that $10 billion is chump change for the Federal budget. On the other, it still seems a significant chunk of money being taken away from other funding streams. The way this funding process would put power to control who qualifies as a candidate into the hands of the Federal legislature really worries me, too. What I fear is that candidates would be restricted, even more than they are, now. All in the name of frugality, of course.
I’m not saying that the idea is one I’d oppose tooth and nail, but as it is here, I don’t see it to be nearly the benefit that some of its advocates are suggesting.
Don’t use the OP’s numbers as the starting point. The 2008 election was estimated to cost $5.3 billion, and half of that was the Presidential campaign… which was high in part because Obama obliterated spending records.
I would expect with public financing, the amount necessary to run the elections would go down, since it is explicitly intended to be a restraint on excessive campaign spending.
Why should my tax dollars pay for crooks to run for office, and steal more of my money once they are elected?
If I wanted a job, is the government going to give me money to run ads telling potential employers that they should hire me? I don’t think so. Let them get the job on their own. Find a way to stop the campaign bribery scheme.
I’ve always wondered: Why not tax campaign contributions on a steep progressive scale? Say, any contribution 10k or less is not taxed, then max out at a 90% tax on any contribution 100k+. What would be wrong with that?
Increase the cost of the ad by how much time they have to give to the opponents.
Boy, “dictate” is kind of a loaded term. Any campaign finance reform scheme has to deal with how to decide who is and is not a viable candidate. There are a number of ways to do it: gathering petition signatures or polling at a certain level are two possibilities.
In my suggestion the TV stations don’t need to lose any money, no one is prevented from donating money, and the tax payers don’t need to foot the bill. If you think that your candidate has the best ideas you can buy ads, but the opponents will have the same amount of time to promote their ideas. It lets us focus on who has the best ideas, not who has the most money.
I think to a large extent, that this is a feature and not a bug. If you are seen as popular, with good ideas, and a legitimate shot at getting elected, you start raising more money. If you are some crazy old coot from the middle of nowhere who runs on the idea of making sodomy punishable by death, he doesn’t raise much money. The system sort of funnels the most popular candidates into the positions where they can be elected and whittles it down to a manageable number of candidates.
No it forces us to do the opposite. The one guy with a good idea buys some ad time, and by law the 49 other dofuses get equal time to tell us about their new fairer tax and spread lies about the first guy.
Well if you assumption is that people given equal access to information can’t discern what are and are not good ideas, then it pretty much doesn’t matter what we do with regard to election reform.
FWIW, I understand France uses a very similar system for many elections (?) The rationale is basically as you say: the public purse doesn’t really like subsidising TV ads for candidates (including some weird ones) but it’s the only solution that somewhat levels the playing field (and may be ultimately more efficient, if people aren’t allowed to blitz more money at the problem, as they are currently forced to)