News-Record.com

The News and Record has published two articles this week advocating public financing of elections. It appears to be a simple, workable solution to the perceived problem of campaign costs keeping qualified people from running for public office. I think it fails on both counts.

Consider three candidates for public office. Tom is independently wealthy and can and will pay for the costs of his campaign himself. Dick isn't so wealthy, but knows how to raise money, and will use that money to campaign. Harry is neither wealthy, nor able to raise money. Public financing of elections would attempt to level the playing field by giving public money to the campaigns of both Dick and Harry, so that all three campaigns would be able to spend the same amount. All well and good, so far. (Aside from the public expense for all the other people who would like to run, and, like Harry, have neither money nor the ability to raise it.)

Each campaign has the same amount to spend, but Dick has lots of wealthy friends and these friends have a constitutional right to express their opinions publicly. So, they use the media to express their opinion that Dick should be elected. In fact, they donate less to Dick's campaign so they can do this. The loss in donations doesn't hurt Dick, he just gets more money from the public fisc. Thus, as a practical matter, Dick has lots more money spent on his campaign than Tom or Harry.

If public money is used to finance campaigns and put limits on the candidates' ability to spend money, then campaigning will shift from the official campaign to private campaigning. I am concerned about my fundamental constitutional rights, if any attempt is made to limit campaigning by persons outside the official campaign.

And the process is not simple. Tuesday's article recognizes that there should be some threshold requirements before a candidate can get public money. Resolving issues of what the threshold is and who meets the threshold is going to be very knotty, and probably involve protracted, expensive litigation. Again, expensive for both the public and the candidate.

Consider, also, that the ability to persuade people to part with money may be one of the requirements of a person holding public office. So, maybe Harry isn't a competent candidate and shouldn't be getting any money.

Let me suggest an alternative that is easier on the public purse strings, and promotes the concept of democracy cited in Tuesday's article. Disqualify any candidate that campaigns for office. If other people aren't willing to extol the candidate's virtues, maybe the candidate should not hold office. What the candidate does and has done is a much better predictor of character than promises made in a campaign. How the candidate evokes a public upwelling of support is more indicative of the ability to govern than 5-second sound bites on the news, or carefully choreographed campaign ads. And if the people are making the campaign, that's democracy.

No. Because it costs money.