Campaign Finance

Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont have all recently passed Public Financing Laws which limit spending on state campaigns and provide public funding for candidates. These laws have been successfully implemented and can easily be translated to a federal level. The problem lies in that candidates who subsist on private funding are the ones making the rules in D.C. Only by encouraging reform at a state level and by electing candidates who believe in public funding can this change.

The strategy of public funding in states like Arizona (which uses state tax dollars to fund campaigns for office) is not perfect. Though public financing is sometimes referred to as "clean elections," elections under the new system have become increasingly laden with hit adds and smear campaigns. Money that would ordinarily support candidates directly now funnels into local 527 groups and PACs that often frame the debate in terms of character assasination and mud slinging instead of issues and ideas. Individual candidates from both parties find themselves being attacked by organizations with vast private financial support. Unable to answer by raising private money for their defence, the voice of the candidate can become lost in the din of PAC hit pieces.

Although a constitutional amendment implementing public financing for federal campaigns will not "fix" every problem with undue influence in Washington, by removing the dependency on large-money donors candidates will no longer be beholden to their narrow views over the public interest. It will also serve to level the playing field between incumbents and viable challengers. A constitutional amendment is essential to bring American democracy back to the people.