Beware of Voter-Owned Elections
Thursday, August 6th, 2009Like many government programs, voter-owned elections have a vaguely Orwellian, name, a noble purpose, and a hefty bill. Voter-owned elections–more accurately, taxpayer-funded elections–are a hot topic in North Carolina, so consider this your brief overview of a heated issue.
What are voter-owned elections? Voter-owned elections are intended to end political corruption and a host of other political problems. The argument is simple: money is a tainting force in politics since it favors the already rich and well-connected candidates and makes politicians feel accountable to their largest donors. There ore, to even the playing field, the taxpayers should foot the bill for a public program that provides money to candidates who wish to avail themselves of it, provided they do not spend any private funds.
The exact mechanisms differ by location, but in general (and in North Carolina), the program features a matching funds trigger. Once a privately-funded candidate in the race passes a threshold in campaign expenditures, the publicly-financed candidate is given matching contributions. Eventually, of course, proponents of the system would like everyone to be using the same amount of taxpayer money.
What are the problems with voter-owned elections? Unfortunately good intentions alone cannot make good policy, especially expensive, convoluted, and potentially unconstitutional policy like voter-owned elections. First, voter-owned elections do not solve the problems they set out to tackle. There is no evidence they have decreased corruption, encouraged broader political participation, or evened the political playing field anywhere they have been implemented. There is no strong argument to suggest they ever will.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, specific provisions of voter-owned elections can run afoul of the Constitution. Money is necessary for political speech, whether it is for buying public ads, yard signs, or even a website. Voter-owned elections laws try to curtail individuals’ political speech by curtailing the amount of money they may spend on political campaigns. In short, the state determines “how much” political speech is necessary for each political race, and then makes candidates dependent on the state for financing. Sounds frightening.
Third, there are practical considerations. There is no reason to send money to political campaigns over public infrastructure, public safety, or public schools, particularly in an economic downturn when local and state governments are struggling to stay out of the red. Additionally, it is fundamentally unfair to force taxpayers to subsidize political campaigns they find uninformed or even offensive. Freedom of association is enshrined in our legal history for a reason.