Democrat’s reform bill threatens third party financing

Liberal house members’ bill could create overwhelming obstacles.

by Timothy D. Smith (aka Timroff at dailykos.com)
for ePluribus Media

The United States Congress is currently considering a Democrat-sponsored bill that would radically change the way campaigns are financed, by eliminating corporate donations entirely and establishing strict spending limits on candidates.

House Resolution 4694, the “Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act” — introduced earlier this month by Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) and co-sponsored by fellow liberal Democrats Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Barney Frank and James McGovern (Mass.), Henry Waxman and Bob Filner (Calif.), Steve Israel (N.Y.), and Tim Ryan (Ohio) — would allow nominees of parties that had averaged 25% of the vote for House races to receive full public funding.

All others would be required to produce signatures equal to at least 10 percent of the last vote cast in order to qualify for partial funding and 20 percent in order to receive full funding. In addition, any candidate who failed to qualify for funding would be denied the opportunity to spend privately raised monies on their campaigns.

But not all progressives are happy with the proposed legislation.

“Campaign Finance reform absolutely needs to happen, but aren’t there enough prohibitions against third party candidates already?” asked Luck, Wisconsin’s Mike Miles, a member of the Green Party, as well as part of a Catholic Worker community who founded a center for the study of nonviolence and sustainable living. Miles was also the first to bring political opposition to Rep. Obey from the left in the 2004 election. So naturally, Miles thinks that Obey’s bill might just be personal:

David Obey had never been challenged from the progressive side before. His opposition had always been from the conservative Republican side. So when he spent $700K and I spent only $5K and still got 9% of the vote, he certainly felt threatened.

But Obey’s spokesman, Ellis Brachman, said the measure is designed to help third parties, rather than harm them.

“There’s a conflict of interest inherent in having politicians run around for donations,” said Brachman. “This bill was written in order to take private dollars out of the system. The way we do things now is inherently corrupted by the dance for dollars.”

But according to Shane Cory, a spokesman for the national Libertarian Party, that probably won’t change, since it’s doubtful the legislation will pass.

“The legislation itself is horribly written,” said Cory, “in a way that makes it impossible to pass muster in the courts. The Supreme Court would throw this bill out if it ever passed the House, which it probably won’t.”

“It’s a joke,” Cory continued,

but it gives us an idea of what the major parties are thinking regarding third party candidates. We’ll expect more serious measures as third party candidates win more seats. We know if we ever get a congressman on the Hill that they’ll really try to shut us down.

“The idea that eight prominent members of Congress would put this out there is revealing,” said national Green Party Media Coordinator Scott McLarty. “I’ve been trying to fathom their justifications.”

One of the main points of the bill that McLarty and others question is the need to acquire significant numbers of signatures in order to qualify for funding. This would mean that in some districts, potential candidates would need to acquire tens of thousands of signatures. For example, a candidate in Missouri’s 2nd congressional district would need more than 60,000 signatures in order to qualify for full funding.

“10% and 20% in many districts represent prohibitively large numbers of required signatures,” said Phil Huckelberry, co-chair of the Illinois Green Party and co-chair of the national Green Party’s Ballot Access Committee. “The goal behind HR 4694 is to use public financing of campaigns — itself a sorely needed reform — to eliminate third party challenges in congressional races.”

But Brachman challenges that statement. “If you are a viable candidate, then you have to be willing to do the work, and, if you are a viable candidate, you should be able to get the people behind you and get those signatures.” Brachman also notes that third parties that fielded a candidate on the ballot in the last comparable race would automatically qualify for at least partial funding. He added that if the Democrat was the incumbent, then the Republican candidate would need to raise the same number of signatures as any third party candidate in order to qualify for full funding.

“You could conceivably see a race with three, or even four, fully-funded candidates, if the candidates in question were willing to do the work and get the signatures.”

McLarty said that this is a fantasy that needs to be dispelled. “Even in a smaller district with only 100,000 voters, 20,000 signatures is an incredibly hard number to reach, especially if the candidate cannot put their own money into the race, or hire collectors to help get those signatures.”

Wisconsin Green, Miles agreed. “It’s not just campaign reform but voting reform in general that we need, but it’s not going to happen, because nobody’s really interested in true reform. It’s a show that they’re putting on, and people ought to realize that and start demanding more.”

Other bills currently in front of Congress pertaining to campaign finance reform include H.R. 4692, the Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act, submitted by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), and HR 4696 the Restoring Trust in Government Act submitted by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). And while third parties such as the Libertarians and Greens have a vested interest in these and other campaign finance reforms, without members of their own in Congress, they will continue to be at the mercy of Democrats and Republicans when it comes to shaping those reforms on the Federal level.