Are the Conventions Worth 32 Cents?

Party conventions are not supposed to be privately financed. The Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 -- the same act that offers public funding for presidential candidates -- provides grants to support the conventions on the condition that no other funds be used for this purpose.

The Federal Election Commission however has permitted this provision to be evaded by allowing unlimited funds to be channeled to the conventions through city "host committees." An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) indicates that this flow of private funds stood at about $1 million in 1980. The CFI estimates that this year contributions to the conventions will come to at least $112 million.

What is going on at the Democrats' convention in Denver and the Republican confab in Minneapolis-St.Paul to induce corporations and a few unions to contribute vast sums to pay for those meetings? After all, the presidential candidates have already been chosen and each party's platform has been drafted.

Conventions resemble trade shows where sellers and potential buyers are brought together in the anticipation that mutually beneficial deals can be struck. At political conventions there is a show provided to the mass media: speeches, roll-calls and the articulation of party principles. But a not-so-hidden purpose of the events is to provide donors with access to political candidates and office-holders. Big contributors are given luxury accommodations and invitations to events where they can mingle with leading political figures.

Political conventions have, in short, become one more way that inequality is built into our political system. Access means political influence; unequal access means unequal influence. In the conviviality of social events, bonding occurs that makes it easy for each side to achieve a shared understanding of policy directions. The problem is the political consensus that emerges is responsive only to the preferences of the big donors, not to the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford to make large political donations, let alone help to pay for a convention.

In this, both parties are culpable. The CFI estimates that private funding will account for about 80 percent of each party's convention. Of course the political accommodations reached by the Democrats will be different from that among Republicans. But in each case the influence of wealthy donors will drive the informal political agenda - as opposed to the formal party platform - that politicians will act on once they return to work.

The power of wealth in politics not only subverts the principle of democracy. It also endangers the economy, the environment and the well-being of the American people. The country faces innumerable problems that require policy responses wealthy special interests will oppose. Big energy industry donors will fight a transition to renewable energy sources. The insurance industry will resist the kinds of reforms that will make health care available to all. Big donors will overwhelmingly struggle against program to reverse increasing income inequality.

One way to start reversing this political failure would be to close the convention funding loophole. Host committees should not be permitted to serve as conduits for political interests. Shutting off this source of private funds would probably mean an increased bill to taxpayers (though it's very unlikely that the treasury would have to make up 100% of lost private donations). Even supposing taxpayers gave $150 million to the parties for their conventions - about 32 cents per taxpayer per year - it would be money well-spent if it helped make politicians more accountable to the American people.

There is a lot at stake in the policy decisions that we will have to make in the near future. To address them fairly and effectively, we have to eliminate the biases associated with the power of money. Charging 32 cents per taxpayer to clean up the conventions is not a bad place to start.

For more Huffington Post coverage from the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.

Comments

[PumaAnn]

Any hope of moving to public financing has been blown away by O's decision to turn it down. That's obvious.

What I resent is the lie. To pretend that Dems are turning away lobbyist money and then funnelling in massive donations by unions and corporations is just another lie.

Makes us the same as the other party. Makes the distinction between the parties unclear. Makes the 2-party system look a bit like a sham.

[walk0nwalls]

Well Puma Ann as much as I've personally disagreed with you in the past I'm sorry to say that in fact, you are right in calling the two-party system a sham.

[MBryant]

The conventions are obsolete dinosaurs. Even fifty years ago the process was mostly a caucus process: party citizen members went to precinct caucuses that sent representatives to county convention ... district convention­.. state convention­.. national convention. It was the natural culmination of a process that not only selected the nominee (and often actually did) but also set the issues / platform and rules that defined the party.

Today - primaries - for which the national delegate outcome is pretty much certain dominant the nominee selection process and the whole process starts insanely early. Because the nominees are usually selected and the mass media is watching - the conventions pretty much allow the candidate to control all of convention so it is consistent with their message and so they've marginalized out of view all of the platform and rules considerations which could show signs of conflict or undermine their marketing. The emergency purpose of the convention to select a nominee if the primary process does not succeed may have small utility because if the party needed the convention they'd probably be too fractured to win in the fall anyway.

Now the conventions are informercials and should likely not be publicly funded. That said - they are an opportunity for down ticket candidates to get visibility. Barack Obama is where he is today because of the Democratic National Convention. Perhaps they should hold the party conventions at the beginnnig of the process rather than at the end.

[mlaiuppa]

Why should I pay for a convention I'm not invited to? I'm a Democrat and there's no way I'd be able to attend the Democratic National Convention. It doesn't need to cost that much and it doesn't need to last four days. I'm not funding someone else's chance to party. Publicly funding the chance for a select few to party for four days isn't going to control influence on Party Platform. There needs to be another method of creating the platform, not funding the circumstances around it.