Dialing for Dollars
Forget New Hampshire. The contest for cash is the first real primary
Campaign finance reform advocates say there are other implications to stratospherically priced races, including the news media's fixation with candidate finances, rather than issues. And at a time when Congress has passed ethics legislation to check the influence of lobbyists, campaigns are not required to disclose the names or affiliations of the "bundlers" who collect millions on their behalf-and presumably expect the favor to be returned if their candidate wins.
Many advocates have taken aim at the public financing system. They say it imposes primary spending limits that have not kept pace with the demands of modern campaigns. A recent proposal from the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, proposes lifting the primary caps to $75 million. Such a change could discourage even well-financed candidates from opting out and create more of a level playing field. Another proposal: increase government matching funds. Some are also calling for more government funding for the general election.
Such proposals have picked up only modest support in Congress, with many Republicans expressing opposition to steering more tax dollars toward candidates. And as it stands, only around 10 percent of Americans check the box on their tax returns that earmarks $3 for the public campaign fund. "Last time I checked, running for president was about getting the most support behind you," says Ben Ginsberg, chief counsel for the Romney campaign, "and fundraising is one indicator of support." This year more than ever, it may be the most important one.
advertisement
