Reforming our campaign finance system is vital to the health of our democracy. The disproportionate influence of special interest money has diminished the role of the citizen and trivialized the basis of our representative democracy. Political races have become professionally orchestrated and well financed marketing battles. Our democracy was founded in the belief that citizens have the right to elect representatives in fair contests based on the quality of the candidates. However, truly competitive elections are no longer the norm. We have allowed our democracy to degenerate from contests of ideas into contests of dollars.

A well-designed campaign finance plan should encourage citizens to actively participate in the process (as donors, voters, and candidates), be attractive to candidates, by easing the burdens of fundraising, and promote the essence of democracy - competitive elections that offer voters a real choice of candidates. Competitive elections stimulate public interest, inform the electorate, and encourage people to vote.

Our present system often does not provide these benefits. Instead, the insatiable demand for money raises concerns about the quality of our representation and the integrity of the whole process. Who can doubt that politicians sometimes pay back contributors in the only way they can, or that large (and frequent) donors enjoy preferential access? In the countless decisions elected officials make every day – who to call back, whether to support or oppose a bill, or to which matters to devote one's energies - money may well amplify the voices of important financial benefactors over those of ordinary citizens.

Because our system of congressional campaign funding is based on the voluntary participation of individuals and organized groups, questions arise about the interests that accompany campaign contributions. The solicitation and donation of private contributions can promote healthy interaction between candidates and voters. But it can also lead to improper relationships between donors and policymakers or produce a perception of influence that fuels public mistrust.

That appearance, as well as the reality, of corruption creates cause for concern. Perceived corruption undermines public faith in the legitimacy of our politics and government. The seeming corruption of our campaign finance system is, therefore, a serious problem. Most Americans believe our current system gives special influence and access to monied interests. This belief is fed by the aggressive solicitation of big money.

All of these problems - the chase for big money, conflicts of interest, inequities in access and influence, and the lack of competition sap the strength and vitality of our democracy.

My main concern is that an increasingly burdensome system is reducing competition and discouraging qualified candidates from seeking office. The increasing financial requirements of elections and the growing emphasis on fundraising raise serious questions about the health of our campaign finance system. Aspiring candidates now face the prospect of extremely costly campaigns. In 1998, there were over 100 million-dollar campaigns for the U.S. House. In the Senate races of 1998, 17 candidates seeking election spent at least $5 million.

Most candidates must raise money as efficiently as possible to cope with rising financial demands. Since public matching funds are not available for congressional races, Senate and House candidates can raise meaningful sums most efficiently by targeting special interest PACs and large donors. Building a broad base of small donors simply takes longer and costs more.

Escalating campaign costs have become a barrier to entry for people of ordinary means or those who lack the desire for nonstop fund raising. In response, candidates are now coming more often from the elite ranks of the super wealthy. Parties increasingly recruit only those who are able and willing to finance their own campaigns.

In short, I have identified three problems in the current system that challenge the basic principles of democratic government:

I believe it is essential to enhance the role of small individual contributors and reduce the amount of time candidates must spend raising money. Therefore, I propose a voluntary program of public funding for congressional candidates.

All candidates may become eligible for public financing. To quailify candidates must raise $5000 in "Support Money" to show that they have a sufficient level of support and interest from the electorate. This money must come from small contributors – counting only the first $100 per contributor. Additionally, each contribution being matched by public subsidy funds must come from within the candidate’s state.

Once qualified, the first $100 of any contribution will be matched, two-for-one with public subsidy money (including initial "support money" donations).

Candidates would be prohibited from accepted PAC contributions and at least 75% of their contributions must come from within their state.

Improving candidates' access to resources will not reduce the demand for campaign funds or the amount of time spent raising money if the additional money simply escalates an "arms race." Therefore, candidates who accept public funding will be required to abide by spending limits. For a U.S. House District, spending limits will be capped at a base of $450,000. The base formula for a U.S. Senate seat will be one-half the House limit ($225,000) times the number of electoral votes for that state.

A candidate whose opponent is eligible for, but does not agree to accept public matching funds is entitled to a 50% increase in the expenditure limit.

A winning candidate in a contested primary race who wins that primary by less than a 2 to 1 margin is entitled to a 20% increase in the base expenditure limit. This increase could only be used during the general election.

A candidate is entitled to a 10% increase in the expenditure limit if it is a first time run for the office and if he/she has not previously run for an office whose territory now includes a population that is more than one-third of the population in the territory of the new office.

These base level limits are generally 15% less than what is typically being currently spent on House and Senate campaigns. In some instances, they are actually a little higher. On the whole, they are generous enough to induce candidates to accept public financing, high enough to reign in the growth of campaign spending and will give all candidates the ability to get their message out to voters.

Spending limits will be applicable per election cycle (two years House, six years Senate). Additionally, all "support money" and all public matching funds can only be raised and disbursed within the 18 month period preceeding the general election. This provision will work to control the costs of the program and the active campaigning period.

The cost of this program is difficult to determine. Additional administrative costs should be minimal. Candidates would provide pertinent information with their regular reports. Compliance and enforcement would fall on the FEC as it does now. Most functions could be handled within existing budget outlays or at a minimal increase. The cost for the public subsidy portion of the program will be dependent on numerous variables including; candidate participation, amount of qualifying contributions, and the amount of the candidate’s own money used. A high estimation of costs is $250 million per year ( to view the math click here). Ordinarily, I’d be reluctant to propose additional spending without seeing a very measureable benefit. However, in this case, I’m going to take a leap of faith. As this is an investment in the people’s business, funding should come from the people’s money. Furthermore, we cannot know the exact savings this plan will produce. Savings will show up in the form of reduced pork pork barrell spending and fewer quid pro quo paybacks. Savings may show up in a more productive economy or in a host of other ways.

The Supreme Court has left intact voluntary campaign spending limits when tied to public subsidies. This provides a viable way to give all candidates the power to get their message to the voters. This simple reform will give candidates a strong incentive to solicit small individual contributions while giving small contributors an incentive to make them. It will significantly reduce the emphasis on fundraising, as a substantial portion of campaign money will come from matching public funds. Finally, this change will increase competition in federal elections by substantially increasing the resources available to challengers.

While special interest PAC money will still be available to those candidates wishing to maintain their ties to big-money contributors, the program gives challengers a meaningful voice, stimulates debate and provides citizens a choice of what kind of candidate they want representing them in Washington. Also, this is not a give-away program.

A further advantage is that it facilitates ceilings on expenditures. The Supreme Court has upheld spending ceilings for candidates who voluntarily accept public subsidies.

Several of the problems faced today are, largely, the cause of an "investment" mentality. It is the notion and knowledge that a legislator can become an investment for special interests and well-monied donors. This "investment" is clearly seen with those groups and individuals that give freely and simultaneously to both the Democratic and Republican parties and candidates, not on the basis of ideology, but for any influence or benefit that they may receive. From campaign to campaign, donation to donation, a citizen legislator becomes a career politician beholden to the special interest groups and wealthy individuals that keep him in power.

An action that would lessen the "value" of an individual legislator to a prospective special interest contributor is to implement term limits. Our Founding Fathers believed in rotation in office. And, for much of our history that was the case. But, as we evolved into the investment approach to public service we lost that rotation. Term limits is an idea that is long overdue. Therefore, I support instituting term limits of 12 years on both the U.S. Senate (2 terms) and U.S. House (6 terms). This allows ample time for legislators to become procedurally knowledgeable, limits the "brain drain" from one Congress to the next, yet provides for the periodic turnover required to maintain vitality and public confidence.

Soft money, the unregulated loophole that allows for huge contribution from corporations and wealthy individuals, corrupts our system for a simple and obvious reason. Soft money donations are given in such huge amounts - $100,000 or more - that even if donors do not expect to receive something in return for their investment (a presumption that is difficult to believe) the appearance of corruption is still present. We must shut down the Washington "soft money" fundraising machine by banning the national parties from accepting or spending soft money. Additionally, we need to require that State and local party units which engage in activities that may affect the outcome of a federal election (during a federal election year) only use funds raised under federal limits.

The more disclosure, within practical limits, the better. Fortunately, with current computer and telecommunications technology, fast and thorough disclosure is very practical. As such, I support all federal campaign contributions being speedily reported to a designated electronic site on the Internet.

By banning the soft money flow to political parties, political parties will have significantly fewer resources to run issue ads. But, another step needs to be taken. The current problem with issue advocacy is that marketers have found clever ways to package them such that they help or hurt a particular candidate without being interpreted as "express advocacy." I support expanding the definition of express advocacy to include ads that a reasonable person would interpret as support for or opposition to a particular candidate.

In addition to taking some of the money and investment mentality out of the political process there is a need to reconnect citizens back into the process. Our voter turnout rate is among the lowest of all the Western democracies. Solutions to this lie in ending the voters’ disenchantment and disillusionment with our present styles of campaigning. The reforms listed above will help toward that end. Another way to increase voter participation is to kill the "wasted vote" syndrome. Most of our elections are held under plurality voting in which the one with the most votes wins. To many people that sounds like majority rule – no problem there. However, if three or more candidates are in the race then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote (Gov. Ventura in 1998, President Clinton in 1992 and 1996). The question then arises: was that winning candidate really preferred by most voters?

In order to ensure that someone wins with a majority of the vote, we should use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Voters rank their choices 1, 2, 3 (in order of preference). If their favorite candidate marked with a '1' comes in last and gets eliminated, then their vote goes to their next-choice: marked with a '2'. If a candidate now has a majority, he or she wins. If not, we again eliminate the last-place candidate, and go to another runoff round.

IRV is better than plurality elections because it eliminates the "wasted vote" syndrome and promotes coalition-building, creating campaigns that are more positive in tone.

IRV is also better than "two-round" runoff or primary elections. IRV requires only a single election, which means taxpayers don't have to pay for a second election. With IRV, the decisive election occurs at the general election when voter turnout is highest.

IRV give voters every incentive to vote for their favorite candidate rather than the "lesser of two evils" because their ballot can still count toward a winner even if their first choice loses. There also is every reason for a voter to rank as many candidates as they want, since a voter's lower choice will never help defeat one of their higher choices.

Campaign finance reform is vital. The leveraging effect of matching subsidies within a public financing option will encourage individual contributions by small donors and broaden participation in our political system. Public subsidies will provide candidates with a strong financial incentive to seek out small contributions from a large number of donors.

In proposing this plan, I draw from the experience of the matching fund progrm in the presidential nomination campaigns. The availability of matching funds has induced presidential candidates to raise a substanital portion of their campign funds through small contributions. As a result, more than a third of the revenues received by most presidential candidates comes from public funding. Those candidates who prove particularly successful at generating small gifts often receive 40 percent or more of their funding from this source.

As is also evident from the experience in presidential campaigns, the availibility of matching funds, when combined with expenditure limits, reduces the burdens of fundraising. Every dollar received in public funds is one less dollar a candidate has to solicit. The advantage of opting out of the money chase is clearly visible in the fact that nearly 95% of the candidates have participated in the voluntary system since 1976. Money remains important in presidential elections, but the situation is under control.

Public funding also diminshes the risk of corruption. Because these funds are not from private sources, they are attached to no particular interests. Because they also encourage candidates to broaden their base of financial support, they help to diminish the influence of large donors.

A further advantage of public financing is that it facilitates ceilings on expenditures. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of spending ceilings for candidates who voluntarily accept public subsidies.

Most importantly, public funding will promote competition in federal elections. The chief impediment to greater competition is the lack of money on the part of challengers. By making it easier for challengers to raise funds, these reforms will make it less likely that candidates will be discouraged from running by the burdens of fundraising.

Term limits, banishing soft money from federal elections, complete disclosure and instituting electoral structural reforms are additional steps which will go far towards restoring public confidence in elections and reconnecting our citizens with participatory democracy.

As your U.S. Senator, I will work for meaningful campaign finance reform, in order that we will have more choices and a stronger democracy.

Back to Issues   Questions or Comments

Prepared and paid for by James Gibson for U.S. Senate
PO Box 50264, Minneapolis, MN 55405-0264, 612-521-5350