So here’s what happened. The Michigan Legislature passed a bill that established public financing of races for governor. Here’s how it was supposed to work: Taxpayers have the option of checking a little box on their Michigan Income Tax returns.
If they do, three dollars of what they owe go into the state campaign fund. Candidates running for governor can then get matching funds of up to a million dollars in the primary and a little more than a million dollars in the general election, under one condition: They have to promise to spend less than two million in the primary and no more than two million in the general election.
That was, in fact, a reasonable sum for a statewide campaign for governor back in 1975, when I was still wearing earth shoes and computers were something that filled buildings and spat out punch cards. Politics has long since become more expensive.
For years, candidates for governor have turned down the state campaign money for the general election, to give them the freedom to raise and spend much more. Four years ago, for example, Jennifer Granholm’s campaign spent nearly $16 million dollars.
Dick DeVos spent more than $42 million, just to lose. Neither party had a contested primary that year.
This year, the governorship is completely open. The candidates who win their party’s nominations are expected to again turn down general election funding, but many of the lesser-known or less rich candidates are expected to seek it for the primary campaign.
But a potential scandal is brewing. There may not be enough money in the kitty, because the legislature stole it. Well, stealing may be too harsh, but they took it. Raided the fund.
This happened during the 2007 fiscal crisis. The lawmakers needed to balance the budget, and didn’t have the guts to raise revenue, so they quietly plundered a number of funds that were supposed to be restricted.
These included money that was supposed to be for the Soo Locks, for helping create jobs and yes, from the state campaign fund. The lawmakers took most of what was there and threw it in the state budget deficit hole. Good government types complained at the time, and talked about a possible class action suit, but nothing came of it.
Meanwhile, fewer and fewer citizens are choosing to designate the three dollars from their tax returns, presumably because they are turned off by politics. Less then ten percent do nowadays.
Consequently, there is a real threat that the fund will run dry this year. A highly placed source told me yesterday that as many as seven candidates may seek matching funds for the August primary. But there may be no more than a total of two million available.
This is sort of shameful. The legislature could easily fix this, but nobody is pushing them to do so. Instead, we are essentially once again limiting campaigns to the very rich and those controlled by special interests. So if we are all comfortable with that, we should just stop pretending and say so.
Otherwise, we ought to fix things, fast.
Consider the obviousness (Is that a word? It ought to be.) of Jack Lessenberry's premise: that unlimited private funding of electioneering is bad, it leads to public corruption, and at a minimum, it leads to enrenched incumbents, machining sepcial-interest legislation out or special-interest money. Public financing of campaigns and limitations on donations and the funding of electioneering is the one way to cure all of that.
It sounds great, doesn't it? One of those things, like global warming, where, when enough pundits say it, intoning the acepted wisdom of "most experts agree that," it's hard not to believe it.
Except when it isn't true, and is measurably untrue. Freakanomics, meet election campaigns.
From Professor Brad Smith of the Capital University School of Law; the reason why none of what Jack Lessenberry has been moaning about (like, uh, more free speech) makes any sense:
http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform
Posted by: Anonymous | February 02, 2010 at 03:07 PM
re: Anonymous above. Are you kidding with these "citations?" Puleeeez, what about quoting health care reform suggestions the Grenada School of Medicine?
Posted by: Bob Martel | February 02, 2010 at 06:43 PM
Regrettably, Professor Smith might not have the election law credentials of Bob Martel.
Professor Brad Smith has only a B.A., cum laude, from Kalamazoo College, a J.D., cum laude, from the Harvard Law School, and experience as a Federal Election Commissioner (nominated by President Clinton, to a nominally Republican seat) from 2000-2005, serving as Chairman in 2004. And too many academic achievements and publications to list here.
Here is Professor Smith's Capital University biography page:
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
Posted by: Anonymous | February 02, 2010 at 08:32 PM