Trending
Should federal taxpayer money help fund political campaigns or not?
Some argue public campaign financing can help level the playing field among political candidates. Others say it would force taxpayers to donate to political candidates and causes they might not support.
Proposed bill H.R. 1, or For the People Act of 2019, would establish an alternative funding system in which the federal government would match small contributions, ranging from $1 to $200 received by congressional candidates, by 600 percent.
Under the proposal, a candidate would be eligible for government contribution matches if the candidate has at least 1,000 individuals who make a qualified small dollar contribution and if the candidate receives at least $50,000 total in small contributions.
Some local residents involved in politics or with former political experience oppose the idea of using federal taxpayer dollars to help fund campaigns, whereas others expressed their support.
U.S. Rep. John Joyce, R-13th District, voiced his disapproval of the proposed bill, noting both the National Right to Life and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the legislation.
The congressman said that was "a clear indication that it has significant flaws" and that the bill would force local taxpayers to donate to political candidates and causes they may not agree with, which "limits their ability to voice their opinions in the public arena unimpeded."
Although the proposed bill is "For the People," Joyce said the bill favors no one other than politicians and the Washington status quo.
Former state Rep. John McGinnis, R-Altoona, said he agrees with Joyce, commenting on how he can't think of a good reason to use tax money for electoral politics, but he can think of a lot of negative outcomes including a restriction on a citizen's right to free speech.
"As with most electoral 'reform' proposals, this seems geared to make it easier for incumbents to stay that way," McGinnis said.
In his opinion, less government is the only proper campaign finance reform.
"When there is more than $7 trillion of spending in control of government, we can expect interest groups are going to find all sorts of nefarious ways to get their beaks wet," he said. "No legislation is going to stop that."
While Joyce and McGinnis assert the proposed bill seems to benefit sitting politicians, others said a move to public financing could help more candidates running for congressional office.
Matt Evans, an associate professor of political science at Penn State Altoona, said the proposed bill helps level the playing field so as to not give an advantage to people who have backing of a lot of money.
"Overall, I think in the context of reforming financing election campaigns, I think that public finance can be an important part of it," Evans said. "It has to go with limiting private financing."
In addition to leveling the field, Evans commented on how much time politicians devote to fundraising, spending hours a day asking for donations. With public financing, he said members of Congress could spend less time fundraising and devote more time to doing their jobs as politicians.
"We could say that public financing will free them from trying to raise private funds and allow them to do the jobs that we sent them there for and, hence, the public is actually getting its money's worth," Evans said.
For Gillian Kratzer, chair of the Blair County Democratic Committee, a move toward public financing is a positive one since campaign funding can be a huge barrier for many candidates.
"It has become so much about how much money you can raise," Kratzer said of the campaign process, commenting on how difficult that is for the average person.
"That means, just by the nature of the fundraising requirement, the people who can run for office are the people who have higher incomes. They are people who are already incredibly connected," she said, adding this can lead to a disconnect between members of Congress and the people they serve.
She said public financing is a way to give all candidates access and their campaigns a fairer chance during election season.
Meanwhile, Nicholas Pyeatt, another associate professor of political science at Penn State Altoona, seemed to have a middle-of-the-road opinion about the alternative campaign funding system. He described H.R. 1 as a bold proposal that seems to try to add equality to the campaign process but also acknowledged that taxpayer money could go toward candidates and causes taxpayers don't support.
However, taxpayers don't get to "cherry pick" what their money gets spent on usually anyway, he noted.
The proposed bill also requires disclosure of donors, another aspect locals are split on, some arguing it would add transparency and others calling it a violation of free speech.
Evans said he is in favor of disclosing donors, saying there is a right to protect free speech but no right to secret speech, while Pyeatt stressed the importance of voters knowing who is bankrolling campaigns.
In opposition, Joyce said the requirement to disclose donors would limit the ability for Americans to participate in the political process "without fear of retribution."
Blair County Republican Committee Chairman Jim Foreman also agreed disclosure would impose on free speech, noting how the bill would force independent political advocacy groups to take a position on a candidate.
He added he thinks donating is a form of expression and that as long as it's lawful, it's up to the donors to decide if they want to remain anonymous or to disclose.
H.R. 1 limits the total amount of payments made to a participating candidate. The total cannot exceed half of the average of the 20 greatest amounts of disbursements made by authorized committees of any winning candidate during the most recent election cycle, rounded to the nearest $100,000.
The bill was introduced to the House of Representatives Jan. 3. It passed the House March 8, with 234 votes in favor of the bill and 193 votes against the bill.
The bill was read to the Senate the first time on March 13 and a second time on March 14. It has been placed on the Senate legislative calendar.
Mirror Staff Writer Shen Wu Tan is at 946-7457.