logo Standing Up To Powerful Interests

Campaign Finance Reform

 

What's New

Candidates Fudge on Campaign Finance Reform

The latest numbers are in and the presidential candidates are surpassing all previous fundraising records. Senators Clinton and Obama have each raised and spent more than $100 million as of December 2007. Newly released reports show that Senator Clinton raised an additional $15 million and Senator Obama and additional $36 million in January alone.

Last year, Illinois PIRG, as a partner in the Midwest Democracy Network, sent out questionnaires to the candidates asking if they would participate in the Presidential Public Financing system in the general election if their opponent agreed to also participate.  Senator Obama responded yes. Senator McCain has also agreed to participate. However, last week, in the wake of his growing fundraising advantage, Senator Obama backpedaled on his commitment. He is however a sponsor of the Senate bill to modernize the system. Senator McCain, while agreeing to take public funds in the general election, has refused to co-sponsor the Senate bill to modernize the system. The Presidential public financing system has not been updated since it’s inception in the 1970s and is woefully out of sync with the way in which campaigns are currently run.

Overview

A record-setting $2.7 billion dollars was spent in the 2006 mid-term federal elections and more than half of that money came in large contributions from a small group of wealthy donors. Powerful interests continued to dump more money than ever into congressional campaigns—the average House race cost more than $1 million. The oil and gas industry spent more than $14 million, health care interests spent $72 million and financial services and insurance companies spent more than $190 million all to elect their favored candidates and to line up favors for next year’s Congress. This process shortchanges the rest of us on everything from environmental quality to tax policy to affordable health care.

Under the current system, powerful interests decide who will have the money to get on the ballot and run a credible campaign. Voters are left with fewer choices and candidates more accountable to their large donors than constituents.

Under clean money systems, candidates who agree to spending limits and to forgo special interest cash, receive public finding for their campaigns.  Several states such as Arizona, Connecticut and Maine now use the clean money system and are living examples that it can and does work. In Maine, for example, more than 90 percent of the candidates now participate.

Additionally, several attempts have been made in Congress to weaken existing campaign finance laws. Such rollbacks would make it even harder for citizens to get their voices heard on issues like healthcare, energy policy, education, and public health and safety.

Fundraising by presidential candidates is shattering all previous records, leading to what is likely to be the first billion-dollar election. Iowa PIRG is fighting to change the way campaigns are funded, including public financing for candidates who agree to meet spending limits and decline private contributions.

 

SEARCH THIS SITE