It’s All About the Benjamins

One billion dollars. That’s a pretty hefty sum. With that much money, you could buy one billion “Livestrong” Bracelets, or four million iPods (the 30 gig ones), or 54 million copies of Hillary Clinton’s book. You could also use that money to fight poverty, illiteracy, crime, to fund public education or national healthcare. Or you could use that money to fund TV ads about sex scandals.

One billion dollars. That is the estimated cost of the 2008 Presidential race—and a low estimate at that. If it wasn’t clear enough, events in the last few weeks have shed light on the sobering fact that for candidates to survive in the fight that’s already underway they will need to have about $500 million in their war chests. And we’ve already had one casualty of war.

Tom Vilsack used to say he lived the American dream. Given up for adoption at birth, Vilsack later went on to become governor of Iowa—and most recently a presidential candidate. Yet his dream ended in the same way that so many American Dreams tragically end: He didn’t have the money. Or, more precisely, he had $1.17 million some 22 or so months before the actual election but dropped out due to financial reasons. “It is money—and only money—the reason we are leaving today,” Vilsack said.

In one day alone, Mitt Romney raised $6.5 million in pledges. Senator Chris Dodd raked in $3.2 million at the end of last year. Senator Clinton hopes to have at least $100 million by the end of this year, and Senator John McCain hopes to raise a comparable amount. And we also have John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, and Sam Brownback—all of whom are capable of raising millions as well. Even the current news cycle has focused on financing over issues; last week’s war between Clinton and Obama spokesmen wasn’t about Medicare or withdrawal from Iraq, but rather about David Geffen, a Hollywood billionaire. Elections—as they stand today—are all about money.

What happened to the good ole days of campaign finance reform? It has seemingly vanished with little more than a whimper. Take the recent actions of John McCain, the champion of campaign finance legislation, who recently removed his name as co-sponsor of a bill aimed at expanding the presidential public financing program. Yes, the McCain of the McCain-Feingold bill has retreated from the battle lines. But the leading Democratic candidates have not acted any better. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and John Edwards have already indicated that they will be opting out of the public financing system for the 2008 race. For the first time since the creation of the public financing system 30 years ago, no major candidates are participating in it.

Born out of the post-Watergate reforms, public financing of presidential campaigns represented an effort to blunt the influence of big donors. The consensus was that not only did big donations often lead to corruption, but that spending caps needed to be put in place. There is still much debate over whether or not money is “speech,” but the simple fact is that expression is free and money is, well, not. Yet, one might ask, is it possible for a candidate to win if they don’t raise upwards of half a billion dollars? I believe that the answer is yes. Four things must happen in order for this presidential election to be less about fundraising and more about ideas.

First, Congress must act now. A bipartisan plan has already been proposed to update the public financing system…for 2012. The new Congress needs to push this through immediately rather than wait for the 2008 cycle to be completed. The proposed plan seeks to triple the subsidies for candidates who participate in public financing in the primary elections to $150 million and raise them to $100 million for the general election. Donations of up to $200 would also be matched at a four-to-one rate (versus one-to-one currently). In order for candidates to get back into the public financing system they must be able to compete with candidates who are privately funded.

Second, the American people must act to fund such a plan. The number of Americans who choose to donate to the public financing system has decreased from 27.5 percent in 1976 to 9.2 percent in 2004. While this is a shamefully low number, polls have shown that when voters become aware of how easy it is to donate—by checking a box on your tax returns—support for donations increased to roughly 70 percent. The American people, however, cannot be expected to support such a program if the candidates they support are opting out of it.

And this brings us to the third point: The major candidates must get back into the public system. Senator Obama proposed a few weeks ago an agreement between the two major party nominees that would limit their fundraising and campaign expenditures (this was, however, before the Hollywood fundraising battle). While Obama has opted out of public financing, he hopes to return private donations if he wins the nomination and a compact is signed. Obama believes that he needs to accept private donations to remain competitive in the primary, but that he would like to preserve the public system, “now in danger of collapse” (his words).

Although Obama’s actions are commendable, the truly commendable thing would be to help preserve the system by participating in it when he has the chance. Obama, arguably the most inspiring of the candidates, could single handedly reform the system by merely choosing to take part in it. Other candidates could do the same, and earn a lot of political capital out of it.

Fourth, the American people—the focus of these campaigns in the first place—must signal their unwillingness to participate in a bidding war. While it may take a courageous candidate to reform our broken system, he or she must have the support of the electorate to have any chance of success. If the average citizen stops donating and instead works for campaigns, or writes letters, or waves flags, then, and only then, will this truly be a campaign of ideas and not of money.

There is a constant sense of futility in American politics. Can one vote possibly count? Can $100 make a difference when people are donating millions? So entrenched in the political rhetoric is the idea that this election is about the “people.” Let’s make it about the people who are in need of new leadership most—the people who can’t afford to donate to campaigns. Let the conversation begin, and let’s keep the checkbooks out of it.



Nicholas J. Melvoin ’08, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator in Lowell House.