Democratic Power Players Push for Public Financing of Congressional Elections

"It takes a major scandal to create a major reform," says Sen. Dick Durbin. Will Citizens United v. FEC be scandal enough to provide popular impetus for a national clean elections system? Note: The links in the story take you to OpenSecret's reports on the politicians and organizations cited.

by Michael Beckel. Posted December 7 on OpenSecrets.org's Capital Eye blog

Might a decision by the Supreme Court to allow unlimited corporate expenditures during elections whet congressional appetite for public financing?

On Friday, two high-ranking Democratic lawmakers predicted that yes, it might.

"If members of Congress think the Supreme Court has tipped the scales so much that they don't have a fighting chance... maybe they will be open to [our proposal for public financing]," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Durbin, along with House Majority Whip John Larson (D-Conn.), spoke at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress in Washington. They are the lead sponsors of legislation to create public financing for congressional races, known as the Fair Elections Now Act.

Their bill, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 1826 and as S. 752 in the Senate, would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional candidates. To qualify, participants would be required to raise a minimum threshold of dollars from a certain number of in-state donors who could contribute no more than $100 to a candidate's war chest.

The amount of public financing would be uniform for House races and tied to a state's population for Senate races. Supporters say the formula should provide enough money for most any candidate to run a competitive campaign. Durbin said the formula would provide candidates with a "fighting chance."

"Can you be outspent? Of course you can," Durbin said. "Having all the money in the world doesn't guarantee success. If you have an operative amount of money... you can succeed even if someone is outspending you."

Durbin said their legislation would release lawmakers and candidates from the burden of using "every waking moment begging for money."

Larson agreed, saying many members of Congress would rather legislate and help constituents than fund-raise.

"The best place I go to enlist people [to co-sponsor my bill] is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee office when they are dialing for dollars," Larson said.

The bill now has five co-sponsors in the Senate and 119 in the House, including supporters from across the aisle in Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Todd Platts (R-Penn.).

Larson also praised the small-donor aspect of the legislation as a way to free lawmakers from being beholden to special interests and permit them to be bolder and more aggressive on political issues.

"We believe the answer is grassroots involvement," he said. "President Barack Obama demonstrated that it could be done."

The focus on small donors, he continued, would make the public feel "like they are part of a system that works."

They also noted that Obama had co-sponsored a prior version of this legislation when he served in the Senate, but added that they had not yet pushed the White House to determine where campaign finance reforms ranks among its priorities. (During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama raised significant sums and momentum from donors who contributed less than $200, and he also became the first presidential candidate in modern history to opt out of public financing for the general election.)

Durbin also noted that momentum in reforming any hot-button issue -- including federal campaign finance laws -- is often difficult to achieve without a significant impetus.

"It takes a major scandal to create a major reform," he said.

Some momentum, Durbin and Larson said, may come from a Supreme Court ruling in its major campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

As Capital Eye has previously reported, the case has the potential to allow corporations, trade associations and unions to contribute unlimited amounts of money to outside groups for independent expenditures in the run-up to elections, something prohibited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The Supreme Court originally heard oral arguments in March and heard expanded arguments in September. An opinion could be issued this month.

Capital Eye asked Durbin if a ruling that opened the floodgates to increased independent expenditures might keep lawmakers from signing onto his bill out of a fear of not having enough money to compete against blitzes of outside ads.

"There's only so much water you can put in a bucket," Durbin told Capital Eye. "I think I'll have enough to get my message out [under this proposed system]."

The legislation would also prohibit joint fund-raising committees between candidates and parties, but it would not restrict the fund-raising of national party committees like the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or their Republican counterparts.

Capital Eye also asked Durbin if political giving to these committees might increase if the Fair Elections Now Act were passed. He dismissed the likelihood of that outcome.

Senators, like himself, may still raise money for the DNC or DSCC, Durbin said, but by and large, lawmakers and candidates would be liberated from fund-raising pressures and have more time to focus on the issues if this bill were enacted.