March 10, 2006
Public financing: How about trying the front door?
By Bill Kraus
There isn’t enough evidence in to be conclusive, but the case for putting significant public money into political campaigns is decidedly encouraging.
In those states where overt public money goes into campaigns, more candidates run, more races are competitive, more people vote, less money is spent on campaigns, and, perhaps most importantly, the feeling that government is for sale, that representative government represents money more than people diminishes.
But to get all those good things, the idea that putting tax money into campaigns is a form of welfare for politicians has to be overcome.
Actually we have had covert public money in campaigns for a long time. That check-off on our income tax return that sends money to a campaign kitty instead of to the state treasury is public money no matter how the obfuscators have tried to characterize it.
And now the trial of former speaker Scott Jensen has made it clear that we have been putting really serious public money into campaigns in the form of “in kind” contributions as well.
All those people who have been raising money for candidates, managing campaigns, preparing advertising materials, advising, helping, recruiting, supporting in myriad ways have been paid with what may be millions of tax dollars. Covertly.
So the philosophical objection is not really the issue. It is, in short, phony not philosophical. As long as taxpayers are paying for campaigning on the sly, it’s okay?
Now that the cat is out of the bag perhaps the stigma of public money for politics is less stigmatizing? Let’s hope so. If it is, we can come out of the closet and get the kinds of benefits mentioned earlier that states that have openly turned to significant public financing as a political cleansing agent.
The law of unintended consequences takes interesting turns. Certainly by going to trial and letting everyone see how money flows Scott Jensen didn’t think he would make the case for public financing of campaigns. But he has.
post a letter about this blog »
current
--------
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004