Public Funding Of Congressional Campaigns Widely Favored

Voters in battleground districts strongly favor legislation that would let congressional campaigns be funded by the public, according to a new survey released Tuesday by Lake Research Partners. The margin of support was 65 percent to 18 percent.

"These are very, very strong numbers," Democratic pollster and political strategist Celinda Lake told reporters on a conference call Tuesday afternoon. "Every single demographic showed more than 2 to 1 support for the proposal."

Among Democrats 76 percent supported the legislation while only 11 percent opposed it. Republicans supported it 56 percent to 25 percent.

The survey found that 30 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who opposes the Fair Elections Act, though 53 percent said such opposition makes no difference.

Now the campaign, which is run by organizations like Change Congress, Common Cause and the Public Campaign Action Fund, is focused on pressuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers to push the legislation to a floor vote.

"Millions of Americans are being mobilized this week to push the House for a vote on the Fair Elections Now Act as soon as they can get it on the floor," said David Donnelly, campaign manager for the Campaign for Fair Elections. "Across the country, people are telling their members of Congress and House leadership that they want to take elections back from the special interests."

The legislation has the support of 165 House members, including lead sponsors Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

Meanwhile off of Capitol Hill, 27 wealthy donors have vowed to withhold campaign contributions from any lawmakers who fail to support the Fair Elections legislation.

Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who contributed about $10 million to Al Gore in 2000 spoke with HuffPost's Ryan Grim.

"It is a trade off, because there are a lot of good things you can talk to them about, but most of the time they don't do anything about it anyway," said Kirsch. "Given the choice, I'd rather have campaign finance reform than access."

Politico reported Tuesday that more than 400 fundraisers are scheduled for House candidates in the two weeks before Congress adjourns.

The Fair Elections Now Act was passed by the Committee on House Administration on Sept. 23.

Comments

[Kris Bui]

12:14 PM on 09/30/2010

Take MORE of my money so people I don't like can campaign with it? I think not. Most of the time they have enough money of their own. Let THEM finance themselves.

[Jim Krow]

01:45 PM on 09/29/2010

If we want a Congress that represents the people of the United States, then the people need to finance campaigns and get corporations and special interest groups out of the election business. A probibition should be imposed on employees, apointees and members of congress working for lobbying firms for five years after they leave the government.
Over a million people in France took to the streets last week over the government's plan to raise the retirement age to 62. If there was ever a reason to take to the streets in america, public financing of elections would be that reason.

[cbelk]

12:48 PM on 09/29/2010

complete public funding of all electons to goverment should be the norm. take special interest $$ out of the equation. The problem is the entrenched polls would never allow this to be voted on.

[sensimilla]

12:33 PM on 09/29/2010

complete public financing of ALL legislative races(and potus) would go a long ways to solving the rampant c0rp0ratism in Washington. It is the FIRST crucial step.

[seanparnell]

12:24 PM on 09/29/2010

Where to begin...

Steve Kirsch couldn't have contributed $10 million to Gore in 2000, as the contribution limit was $1,000.

And the Fair Elections Now Act won't get "special interests" out of campaigns, or whatever collection of buzzwords is being used on this point. If you want evidence of that, just check out the statement of Cong. Michael Capuano, a supporter of the bill, in the committee hearing last week. Even he gets that the program is rigged so that most of those who qualify will only be able to do so with the aid of large, well-organized interest groups - the NRA, the Chamber, unions, etc. http://cha.house.gov/archived_webcasts.aspx

Also, am I the only one that sees the irony in a group of wealth donors pledging to not give money unless elected officials do what they want, and then being lauded by so-called "reformers" for this? Any other interest group tried a stunt like this and the "reformers" would be screaming about corruption.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

[jsgaetano]

11:58 AM on 09/29/2010

And not only that, but it would prevent shell corporations set up by criminals and terrorists to give unlimited amounts of money to the Conservative Culture of Corruption candidates.

[seanparnell]

12:26 PM on 09/29/2010

How would it do that?

I mean, even if you were right that there are shell corporations being set up by criminals and terrorists to give to candidates (there aren't, but we'll set that aside for the moment), this bill would not in the least restrict that sort of activity.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

[jsgaetano]

02:44 PM on 09/29/2010

>even if you were right that there are shell gt;corporations being set up by criminals gt;and terrorists to give to candidates
>(there aren't,

Because you're an expert on what every criminal and terrorist in the world is doing, huh?

>this bill would not in the least restrict that sort of activity.

So it doesn't stop the unlimitted amount of money corporations are able to use to bribe elected officials, as per the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling?

[jsgaetano]

03:25 PM on 09/29/2010

[The Center for Competitive Politics] has actively opposed laws implementing taxpayer financed political campaigns — which it refers to as "bailouts for politicians" -- and restrictions on referenda and ballot initiatives. CCP has defended the right of independent groups, such as 501(c) groups and 527s, to speak out during elections and has defended several organizations in state and federal court in campaign finance and ballot access cases. [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Competitive_Politics

So in other words, you're a lobbyist for unrestrained corporate spending.  How much money do you rake in from these foreign shell companies?

[sbvpav]

10:35 AM on 09/29/2010

meg whitman and carly fiorina spending millions, 401 5-c's spending millions, outside groups of all stripes spending millions; it truly is becoming disgusting. when money = votes, we have given up our representative form of government and "by the people." it is past time for public financing of all campaigns. when politicians rush to get on-air time, granted by the inside-the-beltway-punditry only to raise money, it is time for a change. when candidates like christine o'donnell raises more money from contributors outside delaware than from those who can actually vote for her, it is time for a change.

[NWBrunette]

10:24 AM on 09/29/2010

We could take a rounding error's worth of money out of the military budget and publicly fund every campaign in the US. I'm all for it.

[budanatr]

10:11 AM on 09/29/2010

Public funding only for all elections. Vote for candidates who support this.
This will be a huge step in cleaning up our government.

[maab76]

11:15 AM on 09/29/2010

And keep those "corporate" individuals out of the mix. They are a greedy bunch.

[BobEvansZombie]

10:08 AM on 09/29/2010

Let's be generous. A flat 100k to any congressional campaign. 200k to presidential campings, that's all. Not other money can be spent.

[breakfast]

09:08 AM on 09/29/2010

OK, so who would get the money and how would that be decided?

I guess it is a given that the candidates of the two major parties would be funded, ....but only after their respective knock down drag out primary fights..... funded by who?

Would parties become "established" or would third (and fourth) parties be eligible for funds? Would the funding be party based or could individuals (independents) be included.

These are just a few questions off the top of my head. Something has to be done to prevent existing concentrations of financial power (corporations, rich individuals, etc.) from continuing to dominate (purchase candidates) electoral politics.

These reforms should be carefully thought out. Remember the law of unintended consequences.

[sueinmn]

08:06 AM on 09/29/2010

K Street would crumble if it didnt have the constant revolving doors of the house and senate staffers for influencing policy and outright purchasing congress members. We will never see reform and the industrial influencing machine will always win. Those who spend the most are always the winners and they are making sure the party of no has the most to spend and the rest of us will become servants to the rich. Take away our means of support and what is left?

[omeo2013]

03:12 AM on 09/29/2010

Too bad this is one of those things the majority of us want but we'll never get. We will NEVER get public campaign financing. NEVER.

[OldBear]

03:58 AM on 09/29/2010

I agree. Too much money to be made with the existing system.

[Edward Standley]

09:17 AM on 09/29/2010

Don't be too pessimistic, go to www.fixcongressfirst.org. It really can happen!

[parlimentMike]

02:38 AM on 09/29/2010

Public funding would help a lot. And we need restoration of the fairness doctrine in broadcasting. We don't allow garbage to be dumped onto our rivers and highways, we shouldn't allow it on our airwaves without some sort of warning banner "This broadcaster was found to have misrepresented much more than the average," for instance, and voiced at every break.

[sueinmn]

08:09 AM on 09/29/2010

Just wait until the airwaves are controlled by few, deciding who reads what and when. We are heading towards what present day Iran does to its ppl. Net Neutrality needs protecting as few will choose what the open airwaves let though.

[kimbutgar]

03:07 PM on 09/29/2010

1984 here we come.

[Acleacius]

01:14 AM on 09/29/2010

It would eliminate corruption of lobbyists. All we would need is a Nation Wide Ballot Initiative or Referendum. I bet with 80% we could do it, especially threatening Impeachment charges on the 2 to 4 Corrupt Supreme Court Judges who will try to stop it.

Think if we impeached 1 Supreme Court Judge, the other 3 would take the chance? ;)