WASHINGTON,
D.C. – Higher contribution limits for federal candidates enacted by
Congress in 2002 failed to deliver the promised benefits, according to
a study released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S.
PIRG) Education Fund. In 2004, winners raised $177 million more in
large contributions than losers, despite new higher limits that many
lawmakers predicted would even out campaign funding among all
candidates. Overall, winners held a more than 3 to 1 fundraising
advantage over their opponents. The advantage of wealthy candidates and
those with access to wealthy donors skews election results, deters some
potential candidates and reduces voter choices on Election Day
according to the new study.
“While
addressing the abuses of Jack Abramoff and his associates, we must also
address the underlying problem of money in politics,” said U.S. PIRG’s
Gary Kalman. “Talk in Congress of again raising contribution limits
along with lobby reform is nothing less than shameful – a cold shoulder
to concerns to the American people.”
The study, "Raising the Limits: A Bad Bet For Campaign Finance Reform",
also found that despite a promising increase in the amount of small
donations in the 2004 election -- up $146 million from 2000 -- the
overall clout of small donors dropped slightly. Large contributions,
those of $1,000 or more, increased by $345 million and the net result
was that small donors accounted for less than they did in the previous
presidential election.
“The
evidence counters the misguided notion that higher contribution limits
helps the little guy – the grassroots candidate who supposedly will be
able raise more money to build name recognition and voter support.”
said Adam Lioz, Democracy Advocate at USPIRG. “In fact, the research
data suggest that higher limits make it more difficult for those
without deep pockets to overcome the advantages of those with ties to
wealthy special interests. In a high limits system, the benefits go to
those who can raise insurmountable sums, deter potential challengers,
and run in races that are effectively decided by money before a single
vote is cast.”
The
report also cites a disturbing trend toward fewer and fewer candidates
running for office that continued unabated under the new rules. It
appears that as the need to raise large campaign contributions to win
increases, fewer individuals are choosing to run.
“In
order for Americans to see reform work in their hometown elections, we
need to fix some policies and pass others that will more readily engage
voters in the process,” noted Kalman, “the current system does not do
that well.” The report lists a number of measures that would create a
system in which average Americans have a real opportunity to weigh in
with meaningful contributions at the outset of campaigns, learn more
about candidates during campaigns, and have real choices on election
day. The recommendations include:
1.
Lower contribution limits. Contribution limits for all candidates and
all races should be set at a level that average Americans can afford.
Given that only 0.05% of voting age Americans made a $2,000
contribution to a 2004 federal candidate, we should dramatically lower
contribution limits.
2.
Limit campaign spending. Elections should be contests of ideas, not
battles for dollars. The use of personal wealth and large contributions
in campaigns should be limited through mandatory spending caps so that
no candidate has an unfair financial advantage.
3.
Provide vouchers, tax refunds or credits for small political
contributions. Vouchers, tax refunds or credits for small political
contributions (up to $100) would encourage more small contributors to
participate in the political process. This would magnify the voices of
average Americans, enable candidates to run campaigns geared towards
non-wealthy citizens, and provide a counterweight to the money flooding
the process from large donors.
4.
Provide candidates with a clean money option. Give candidates the
option of forgoing all private contributions and receiving limited
amounts of full public financing. We should start by providing full
public financing for presidential elections and eventually extend this
program to include congressional elections.
5.
Provide free media for candidates. Free TV, radio, and mail should be
provided to candidates. This would dramatically decrease the cost of
campaigns and would provide an opportunity for those who are not
favored by wealthy donors to get their messages out. The American
public owns the airwaves, which are supposed to be operated “in the
public interest,” so this requirement would not impinge upon the rights
of commercial broadcasters.
6.
Require in-district fundraising. Candidates should be required to raise
all or most of their funds from the constituents they seek to
represent. This will make representatives more accountable to their
constituents and reduce the influence of outside interests.
