Campaign finance reform is only one, limited way, of fixing our broken politics. But it is one we have to save.
If, however, we look at all the goals of campaign finance reform, we will see that the folks concerned about Tom Knox’s ability to spend much more out of his own pocket than other candidates can raise and spend is a serious problem. But there are ways of fixing that problem now that would improve our campaign financing system rather than taking us back to the dark ages.
Campaign finance reform has a number of goals. One goal of campaign finance reform is to limit pay to play—the practice of big campaign contributors getting benefits from the city in return for their contributions. That is the prime reason that Jim Kenny’s proposal to eliminate all limits on campaign contributions in the Mayoral race is a really terrible idea. (And that goes for Council races, too.)
But there are other goals of campaign finance reform. And the ability of millionaires to buy their way into power does undermine these other goals.
A second goal of campaign finance reform is to create a level playing field between candidates. We do want to judge candidates on the character, experience, effectiveness in the past, and ideas, not just on the basis of their ability to raise or contribute a lot of money. Millionaires have always had an advantage in politics. They shouldn’t. That advantage is enhanced by contribution limits that do not apply to self-financed candidates.
A third goal of campaign finance reform is to change the dynamic of campaigns. We want candidates to be spending their time out talking—and more importantly—listening to voters rather than dialing for dollars. When one candidate can contribute millions to his own campaign, the other candidates have to spend more time on the phones instead of in the streets.
(I’m feeling that pressure right now, by the way. As those of you who have seen me around the city know, I have been doing at least one event—and more often three or four—a night since October. But last week, in the run up to my first major fundraiser, I took two nights off to call potential donors. I’m not going to complain about how horrible it is to ask people for money—I’m actually starting to enjoy it because it really is just another way of reaching out for support. But I would learn a lot more about this city and be better prepared to become a Council member, if I were out talking to the vast majority of people who are not able to contribute money to my campaign.)
So, to meet these goals, should we gut our campaign finance limits? For two reasons, the answer is no.
The first is that ending pay to play is a critical need in American politics. And that is especially true in this city, with our history of corruption and massive wastes of public funds due to pay to play.
Second, there are other, better ways of meeting the second and third goals of campaign finance reform.
The best would be public financing of our political campaigns. Public financing, done right, can go far in leveling the playing field in politics and reducing the time candidates spend raising money, except perhaps when one candidate is a millionaire of Bloombergian proportions. However, while public financing must be brought to Philadelphia before 2011, at the moment it seems to me that we are too far into this campaign to set up such a system.
But I do not think we are too far into the campaign to change the way television advertising is paid for in our campaigns—and remember it is the fear that Tom Knox can dramatically outspend Congressmen Brady and Fattah on the airwaves that has lead to the concern about “leveling the playing field.”
We need some discussion about various ways of changing how television advertising is done. But here are some initial possibilities. (I should add that I do not know much about the city’s authority to do some of these things. I’m going to try to find out more in the next week or so.)
First, as Hannah Miller suggested here months ago, we should require television stations and cable companies to dramatically reduce the cost of political advertising. The public airwaves and the cable companies are public trusts—and cash cows. They have both the responsibility and the financial capacity to provide very low cost political advertising.
Low cost political advertising would not stop a millionaire from outspending other candidates. But most research on the effects of television advertising suggests that its marginal value declines sharply after a certain point. It might help a campaign if voters see a television ad seven instead of two times. But seeing it fifteen instead of seven times does not make much difference.
Second, we could simply limit the number of television advertisements that any television station or cable company could accept from one candidate. Under the current interpretation of the first amendment we can’t stop candidates from spending their own money. (That is an interpretation we should someday work to overturn, by the way.) But we can limit the number of advertisements a television station or cable company can accept. If a millionaire wants to spend millions on buttons and bumper stickers let him. (He still has to find voters to wear them or put them on their car.) But there should be no unlimited spending on TV ads.
Third, if a strict limit were not legally feasible, we could tax the money candidates spend on television advertisements beyond a certain threshold and redistribute that money to the other candidates.
There are probably other alternatives worth exploring. If Councilman Kenny and others we are facing an emergency in our campaign finance system, then let’s spend some serious time in the next week discussing these alternatives and come up with a solution.
Let’s not destroy campaign finance reforms that were meant to deal with one of the most obvious ways in which politics is broken in this city.