Public Campaign Financing: Cost?

After considering why we need public campaign financing and who would be eligible to receive it we are left with the big question of cost. This is really a two-part question: How much would it cost? And how can the government afford to take on this new expenditure? Jeff Golden, in his book As If We Were Grownups, makes excellent points about both these issues.

Using figures from the last election cycle for President and Congress which Golden says exceeded $1 billion, he explains, even if that amount is increased to $2.billion it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the total 2005 budget. When you spread that over the 2 year cycle for Congress and 4 years for President, the annual cost for full public financing would be more like 1/30 of 1% of the total budget. In the larger scheme of things that is a very small amount to allocate to something that would restore control of our government to the people.

When it comes to looking at public campaign financing as a new expenditure, Golden points out that the hidden costs of special interests’ influence on legislation far exceeds anything we would spend on public financing. The truth of this is apparent if you look at the support various special interests give to candidates and then follow the dots to the legislation passed by those candidates.

Golden gives several examples of the cost of this influence:

The Medicare Rx bill: “When it came to the floor for a vote its price tag was $400 billion. A week later an “adjustment” put the cost at $535 billion” This bill is expected to increase pharmaceutical revenues somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 billion.

Farm subsidies: In regard to the larger than usual $200 billion farm bill, “…there’s a broad consensus of observers pointing out that a huge slice of that pie will go not to helping family farmers survive, keeping food prices down, helping our balance of trade, or creating jobs, but instead to fattening the bottom line of agribusiness corporations who donate millions to political campaigns.”

Military spending versus what we get for it: “…of the $450 billion to $700 billion we will spend on military and related security functions this year (the real amount depends on who you ask), there is consistent agreement among military professionals with no current ties to politics or industry that tens of billions – some would put it at hundreds of billions – will go to projects that will do nothing at all to make America more powerful or secure.”

For other examples, just follow the money:

Insurance companies that make contributions and the resulting lack of insurance reform that results;

Communication giants like AT&T whose contributions precede the passing of anti-consumer laws governing ownership and fees connected with media;

Financial services companies who contribute heavily and changes such as the bankruptcy laws that follow.

The influence special interests wield in the construction and passing of our laws is obvious. And these laws cost taxpayers billions of dollars while special interests rake in the profits. A small fraction of these dollars would fully fund public campaign financing and take that influence out of play.

Acknowledging what we are paying in these hidden costs, it clearly is not a question of, if we spend the money, but rather, a choice of how we spend it.