GET RID OF NEEDLESS CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS.
Smith, Bradley A.
GET RID OF NEEDLESS CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS.
Higher campaign costs are neither inherently good nor bad. They
result, mainly, from tradeoffs we have chosen, wittingly or not, to
make.
For example, nominating candidates through primaries, rather than
caucuses or conventions, substantially raises the cost of seeking
office. Would we give up primaries? Probably not. But how about reducing
early voting? Just 20 years ago there was no such thing. Early voting
raises the cost of campaigning, especially for state and local offices,
as candidates must begin communication and turnout efforts earlier.
Here's another possibility: create more districts. The United
States has 40 percent more people than it did in 1980. But the size of
most state legislatures is unchanged, so more money must be spent in any
given race to reach and turn out voters. More populated districts also
make traditional low-cost campaign tactics, including door-to-door
campaigning, picnics and rallies, less effective, given their limited
reach. Adding five or six seats to a state senate--few currently have
more than 40 members--could reduce the electorate in each district by 20
percent or more. Surely a 35-member senate could function as effectively
as a 30-member senate.
Remember that campaign spending has benefits. Studies by University
of Minnesota's John Coleman have shown that higher campaign
spending boosts voter knowledge, especially for those least informed
about politics and government. Higher spending also correlates with
competitive races, which many consider a good thing. Given the benefits
of higher spending, perhaps we should consider a "supply side"
approach, aimed at reducing the effort needed to raise funds.
One idea is for government to pay for campaigns. Whether
cash-strapped states should do this is a difficult question.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence that government financing works.
An Institute for Free Speech study in Connecticut found no change in
legislative behavior after that state implemented public funding. More
relevant to the effect of campaign financing on democracy, we studied
Arizona and Maine and found that government funding did not increase the
number of nontraditional candidates. Indeed, government funding was
associated with a decline in the number of women legislators. Nor have
studies found a link between government funding and higher confidence in
or satisfaction with government.
If not government funding, what is the answer?
In the past decade, 18 states have raised contribution limits. But
that means more have not. And almost no states have raised their limits
to fully account for inflation since the limits were first imposed.
Higher limits can reduce time spent fundraising.
Additionally, many states increase compliance costs (a campaign
cost) and smother true grassroots campaigns with needless, and
needlessly complex, regulations. People should not be discouraged from
participating in politics by spools of red tape, but too many states
have intricate, confusing campaign laws that desperately need
simplification.
Meanwhile, provisions of the federal government's 2002
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka the McCain-Feingold Act, have
severely hampered fundraising by state and local party committees. State
officials should insist that Congress amend the law to free up local
parties, easing the burdens of candidate fundraising and enhancing
grassroots participation.
Efforts to lower spending through limits and regulation have been
unsuccessful--after all, we have far more regulation than 40 years ago.
Lower spending also comes at the expense of voter knowledge. Doing away
with needless regulations, and thinking about things such as early
voting or restructuring legislative chambers, will make it easier and
less costly to run for office, without limiting political speech.
BY BRADLEY A. SMITH
Bradley Smith is the chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and
former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. The institute is the
nation's largest organization dedicated solely to protecting and
defending the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish
and petition the government.
COPYRIGHT 2018 National Conference of State Legislatures
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.