A New Requirement for Presidential Candidates
It isn't enough to have name recognition, or experience, or even a record of governmental service. Now those who would be president must also have a demonstrable ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to run. An article in today's NY Times makes that clear.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York became the first candidate since the program began in 1976 to forgo public financing for both the primary and the general election because of the spending limits that come with the federal money. By declaring her confidence that she could raise far more than the roughly $150 million the system would provide for the 2008 presidential primaries and general election, Mrs. Clinton makes it difficult for other serious candidates to participate in the system without putting themselves at a significant disadvantage.
Senator Clinton has certainly not been the first to forgo the public financing provided by the federal government from funds designated by taxpayers on their returns, only the first to do so right from the start and to include both primary and general elections.
By 2000, two Republican candidates, the billionaire Steve Forbes and Mr. Bush, had turned down public money for the primary campaign. Mr. Bush became the first major-party nominee to do so. And in 2004, for the first time, both the Democratic and the Republican nominees turned down public financing for the primaries.
Why the shift away from accepting free money? The first reason is that there isn't as much of that money as one would think. American taxpayers have stopped checking off that little box on their returns:
The system is financed by taxpayers who check a box on their returns to allocate $3 to an election fund, with about 33 million people a year in recent years directing a total of about $400 million to each quadrennial presidential election.
But the fund has faced chronic shortfalls as the percentage of taxpayers contributing has declined to less than 10 percent last year from over 30 percent in the 1970s.
Another reason is that the costs of campaigning has risen dramatically. Television commercials have become a major source of revenue for stations running them and the easiest way for candidates to reach millions of voters without having to leave their homes or governmental offices.
A third reason involves the strings on the federal money which limit the candidate accepting any other private funds (which was the whole point of the system to begin with).
The result? Millionaires or people with access to millionaires and corporations willing to do business with the candidates now for the right to do business with them later will be the only people who can afford to become president (or senator, or representative or governor).
More than the federal funding system is broken. The entire electoral system is skewed and needs reform, but I doubt that the current crop of politicians are interested in such reform. Until the public starts screaming about the very nature of our electoral system, we are going to be stuck with politicians who consider "dialing for dollars" to be their main job.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York became the first candidate since the program began in 1976 to forgo public financing for both the primary and the general election because of the spending limits that come with the federal money. By declaring her confidence that she could raise far more than the roughly $150 million the system would provide for the 2008 presidential primaries and general election, Mrs. Clinton makes it difficult for other serious candidates to participate in the system without putting themselves at a significant disadvantage.
Senator Clinton has certainly not been the first to forgo the public financing provided by the federal government from funds designated by taxpayers on their returns, only the first to do so right from the start and to include both primary and general elections.
By 2000, two Republican candidates, the billionaire Steve Forbes and Mr. Bush, had turned down public money for the primary campaign. Mr. Bush became the first major-party nominee to do so. And in 2004, for the first time, both the Democratic and the Republican nominees turned down public financing for the primaries.
Why the shift away from accepting free money? The first reason is that there isn't as much of that money as one would think. American taxpayers have stopped checking off that little box on their returns:
The system is financed by taxpayers who check a box on their returns to allocate $3 to an election fund, with about 33 million people a year in recent years directing a total of about $400 million to each quadrennial presidential election.
But the fund has faced chronic shortfalls as the percentage of taxpayers contributing has declined to less than 10 percent last year from over 30 percent in the 1970s.
Another reason is that the costs of campaigning has risen dramatically. Television commercials have become a major source of revenue for stations running them and the easiest way for candidates to reach millions of voters without having to leave their homes or governmental offices.
A third reason involves the strings on the federal money which limit the candidate accepting any other private funds (which was the whole point of the system to begin with).
The result? Millionaires or people with access to millionaires and corporations willing to do business with the candidates now for the right to do business with them later will be the only people who can afford to become president (or senator, or representative or governor).
More than the federal funding system is broken. The entire electoral system is skewed and needs reform, but I doubt that the current crop of politicians are interested in such reform. Until the public starts screaming about the very nature of our electoral system, we are going to be stuck with politicians who consider "dialing for dollars" to be their main job.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by Diane at 3:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home