Like jackals, opponents of the current presidential public financing system are anxiously watching the system teeter on the brink of collapse.  These die-hard opponents have worked to starve the funding and some are beginning a premature celebration of its demise.  But before they start the party, they might consider the benefits the system bestowed on ultimately successful candidates whose campaigns would have faded into silence without the ability to tap into public funds.  The most prominent example is Ronald Reagan, an insurgent candidate at the time whose voice and opinions would surely have been denied a fair hearing if not for a timely infusion of public funds.

For almost thirty years, the system operated successfully with the participation of every major party candidate from 1976 to the 2000 presidential campaign.  Funds have been distributed evenly between the two major parties -- approximately $600 million to each -- and have allowed for candidates who were not initially considered viable to make important contributions to the national debate -- candidates like Reagan, Jimmy Carter and John McCain. 

Political observers agree that the system has not been updated and, absent a fix, few candidates will opt-in come 2008. Senator Clinton has already signaled that she will bypass the system and others may not be far behind.  Senator Mitch McConnell and others have disingenuously cited the lack of recent support among presidential hopefuls.  Mr. McConnell, in particular, has opposed every attempt to modernize the program to reflect the way campaigns have changed over the last three decades. It is a gross distortion to cite the checkoff rates as reflective of public opinion.  Recent research by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed numerous problems with the checkoff as it is structured, none the least of which is that the vast majority of taxpayers who have their taxes filled out by a third party are never asked if they want to participate. A system rigged for failure will surely fail.

The answer to the problems faced by the presidential public financing system lies not in abandoning a once successful program, but in addressing the obstacles that make the program less than attractive to presidential hopefuls. For the system to regain the success it has historically enjoyed we must raise the spending limits, adjust the timing of the funding, eliminate the state-by state spending limits and let candidates decide how to best spend their campaign funds.  The high cost of campaigns and the compressed primary schedule make these changes essential for the system to adequately meet the needs of today’s campaigns.

In 2008, the nation is very likely to witness a presidential campaign which for the first time will have the two major party candidates raise and spend more than $1 billion. In the absence of a workable public finance program, the campaigns will be awash in special interest money.  After this year’s scandals involving Jack Abramoff, at least two Congressmen, top aides and other lobbyists, the public is not anxious for a fundraising free-for-all.  Numerous surveys and studies have documented the public’s frustration with Congress and what they perceive as an ethical vacuum in Washington, but interesting new research from the Joyce Foundation found that 65% disagreed with the statement that “corruption in government will always be a problem so trying to fix it will not make much difference.”  A majority also rejected the idea that money “will always influence government decisions so it is not worth trying to reduce the amount of money in politics.”  The public may be frustrated, but they are not giving up hope that we can and should continue to reform the system.

Due to congressional foot-dragging, it is too late to fix the system in time for the 2008 election, but we reject the idea that it is too late to fix the system. Bills introduced in the House and Senate this year modernize the system for the 2012 election and restore the incentives for all candidates to take part.  Without the public financing system we jeopardize the independence of the presidency and willingly turn the contest over to the highest bidders.