In the op-ed “Confessions of a Congressman,” former Congressman Steve Israel revealed why he decided to leave Congress. Spoiler alert: it’s because of “a fund-raising regime that’s never been more dangerous to our democracy.” Comparing political action committee fund-raisers to panhandling, Israel laments about the campaign finance system.
In a democracy, every citizen should have a say. In America, certain voices are being drowned out by a campaign system that prioritizes funds from millionaires and corporations over the support of everyday people. To combat this, policies such as donation matching and “democracy vouchers” should be used nationwide.
As a whole, the people who elected officials have to beg for money from are strikingly similar to each other. Just 3% of the U.S. population has over $1,000,000 in wealth, but 45% of congressional donors giving more than $5,000 are millionaires. While 63% of the U.S. population is white, 92% of federal election donors in 2014 were white. In 2014, men, who make up slightly less than half of the population, accounted for 66% of donors. To top it all off, less than 1% of Americans donate more than $200 towards a political campaign.
This is a problem because money inflates the influence of certain people at the expense of everyone else. Research shows that the better-funded candidate wins the primary election almost all of the time. Furthermore, according to a study published in the American Journal of Political Science, campaign contributions are proven to facilitate access to congressional officials, as “senior policy makers made themselves available between three and four times more often” for donors. Prioritizing donors means less time addressing the concerns of the majority of the population, whose interests often differ from those of the donors. For example, 39% of large (1,000+) donors supported the Waxman-Markley clean energy bill, compared to 63% of non-donors. In addition, 48% of large donors supported the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, compared to 74% of non-donors. This disparity in support between large donors and the general public highlights a larger issue: the influence of money in politics
Studies done by the Pew Research Center reveal that 59% of Americans believe that “reducing the influence of money in politics” is a top priority, and 77% of Americans support limits on political donations. It seems intuitive that large campaign donations can lead to corruption.
Does this mean that we should limit campaign spending? Not necessarily. The 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that banning large donations violates the First Amendment right to free speech since campaign donations are a form of political expression. Additionally, money helps challengers level the playing field when running against incumbents. Instead of limiting campaign spending, we should prioritize efforts to boost funding from everyday citizens.
This is where small donor public financing comes in. In New York City, eligible donations are matched by public funds eight-to-one. Therefore, a $10 contribution from a NYC resident to a candidate running for municipal office could become $90 for that candidate. That way, elected officials can rely on support from their neighbors instead of from wealthy special interest groups.
Portland, Ore. utilized a similar donation matching system, and it resulted in a more even mix of donors from low-income and high-income neighborhoods. When this matching program was implemented in Berkeley, California, the average contribution was 62% lower than that of the previous election, indicating that smaller amounts were being donated by a larger amount of people.
Another potential solution was carried out in Seattle, where “democracy vouchers” allow residents to fund local candidates. Candidates participating in the program agree to follow certain campaign spending limits. In 2019, residents assigned over $2 million in vouchers to candidates of their choice. Despite corporate expenditures against those candidates with community support, the publicly funded candidates won four out of the six city council races that year. If these policies are implemented on a larger scale, they will limit the influence of large corporations and very wealthy individuals in politics. Having wealth shouldn’t be a requirement for having a voice in our democracy.