They're at it again.

On March 31, a bipartisan group of House members introduced H.R. 1826, and a similarly bipartisan pair of Senators introduced S. 752. Both bills are entitled the “Fair Elections Now Act,” and each bill provides for partial public funding of elections in its respective house of Congress. These bills are an attempt to reduce the prevalence of large donors in congressional elections, the need for elected officials and candidates to spend enormous amounts of time fundraising, and the power large donors have over the legislative process.

Unfortunately, these bills not only fail to achieve their objectives, but in several ways they will actually make things worse.

The plan these bills create would set up a fund that disperses money to congressional candidates who qualify by raising enough money in small donations (between $5-100). Any candidate who participates in the plan would be limited to donations of $100 or less, rather than the current limit of $4,600 ($2,300 for a primary, and another $2,300 for a general election).

A participating candidate who raises enough money from enough small donors would qualify for a lump sum in public money, with the possibility of doubling that sum through “matching funds” for extra money raised. Qualifying candidates would not be allowed to spend their own or their family’s money (except for $100 per person), would not be allowed to accept large donations to their “Leadership PACs,” and would be required to debate their opponents.

On its surface, this plan sounds like a method for getting rid of large donors (and large fundraisers who raise huge sums for a candidate). It also seeks to end the constant money chase – currently, both major parties have large phonebanks in Washington, DC, and expect their elected officials to spend a lot of time there, calling donors to raise money for the next election; this plan tries to end that practice.

Dig beneath that surface, however, and it turns out that the endless fundraising, and the large donors, will not be eliminated or even diminished. Instead, the focus will shift slightly, and that shift will make things even worse for truly independent voices.  read more »