War, terrorism, scandal, and voter frustration with Congress turned last year’s election into one of the closest mid-term elections in more than a decade.   Party control of the House and the Senate changed hands. In such a competitive year the results should prove that elections, in the end, are about issues and not money.

They should, but they won’t.  Campaign finance figures show that candidates raised more than $1.4 billion.  Add to that the fundraising by parties and independent groups and the total for the campaign season was $2.8 billion. For all the talk of competition, more than eighty-five percent of the races were not competitive and, in a slightly larger number, the candidates who raise and spend the most money won.  Despite the nascent promise of the Internet and new strategies to reach small donors, large donors and special interests still provide the majority of campaigns funds – approximately 82% in the 2006 primary races.  And members will return to a system that gives unfair advantage to the wealthy and well-connected regardless.

The fact is that this election will bolster the evidence that significant reform is needed.  Some will point to partisan gerrymandering to explain the reelection rate and, to a point, they will be right.  Sophisticated computer programs allow political operatives to redraw congressional district lines to protect incumbents or favor one party over another, but the argument does not explain the lack of competition in the primary elections.  A look at the fundraising totals offers another explanation.  In last year’s primaries, 92% of the candidates that raised the most money won.  Winning candidates outraised their opponents by 3.5 to 1.  In the current system, potential candidates who are not personally wealthy or do not have access to large donors might as well save themselves the frustration and disappointment. Although any number of candidates without access to wealth might better reflect the interests and values of the voters, they simply cannot compete.

Not surprisingly, the money chase also invites the type of corruption we learned of in the past year.  Two members of Congress, top aides and prominent lobbyists have already pleaded guilty to corruption charges and more indictments are expected.  We have seen everything from bribes given to secure questionable defense contracts that undermine our national security to special tax breaks traded for vacations to Scotland and a few rounds of golf.  Should we be surprised? In this record breaking year for congressional campaign spending, candidates are all but required to push the limits on fundraising practices if they want to compete.  A recent report by U.S. PIRG, The Wealthy Primary, suggests that a fundraising advantage is one of the top indicators of electoral success.

It does not have to be this way.  Alternative systems for funding campaigns have been working successfully in several states.  In Maine and Arizona, candidates who agree to reasonable spending limits and refuse special interest and other private contributions are eligible for public financing.  A similar program was recently signed into law by the Governor of Connecticut.  The public financing programs are effective and popular.  More than 90% of the candidates running for seats in the Maine legislature this year have opted in to the public financing system.

Public financing offers an opportunity for voters to see and hear from the people asking for their votes. Without having to spend the majority of their time hustling money from wealthy friends, candidates can afford to listen to the concerns of the communities they serve.  Under this clean money system, voters see real choices on Election Day rather than simply the “favorite sons” of the powerful interests because the playing field is level for qualified candidates.

Two weeks ago, Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Arlen Specter (PA) introduced a bill (S. 936) modeled after the Maine, Arizona and Connecticut systems. 

Imagine how different the politics of the nation would be if qualified candidates had the time and resources to spend their campaigns talking with average voters instead of dialing for dollars.  Former Congressman and one-time senate  candidate Peter Kostameyer once said that the only time he saw people during his campaign was on the elevator up to his office to call potential donors.  We need to change the system -- not just tinker around the edges but really change the system.  The Durbin-Specter bill offers that change.