The Public Does Not Favor Public Financing for Campaigns
Public support for public financing of political campaigns is pretty weak in Wisconsin.
My proof?
People are voting with their wallets.
Just 6 percent of income taxpayers in 2004 checked a box on tax forms to set aside money for the fund, which provides public dollars to candidates who, among other things, agree to limit campaign spending. Nearly 20 percent of taxpayers participated early on.Read the entire Appleton Post Crescent story.
The anemic level of support is particularly interesting given the fact that checking the box does not add to one's tax liability.
So, given the public's lack of support for public financing, what do the 'campaign finance reformers' want? To make public support for public finance MANDATORY.
Rather than have a system funded by voluntary contributions, the 'reformers' want to create a system funded by general purpose revenue (read: our tax dollars).
Support for welfare for politicians hovers around 6 percent in Wisconsin but the enlightened 'reformers' are pushing for 100 percent of us to pay for a public financing system.
1 Comments:
The fact that only only 6% of people checked that box on their tax forms isn't a very accurate way to measure support for publicly financed elections. The simple fact that the box is on your tax form seems to imply that the money will be taken from your tax return (although this is not the case). I had to think for a bit about it before I checked the box, despite the fact that I am for publicly financed elections.
Right now, politicians have raise money from big spenders who can afford to give thousands of dollars. That inherently gives more "free speech" to those who can afford to give the cash. Personally, I could afford a $5 or $10 donation, but not much more. So, I don't get as much of a say in which candidate has a financial advantage than the guy down the street making a six-figure salary (or even the guy making $80,000 a year).
As luck would have it, a plan for public financing that currently being debated in California would require candidates to raise a certain number of $5 and $10 donations to show their viability for candidacy in order to receive the public funding. This allows voters to donate cash to their preferred candidate, but to do so in a manner that gives each person a proportionally equal amount of "free speech" as defined by monetary campaign donations. In the current system, those who can afford large donations have more "free speech" than those who cannot.
To pay for publicly financed federal elections would only cost $6 (http://www.just6dollars.org/) a person. That's a pretty small price to pay for eliminating a huge discrepency in free speech and one of the largest causes of corruption.
Post a Comment
<< Home