On most political issues — the economy, health care and climate change — Americans are more polarized than ever before. However, there is at least one subject on which the vast majority of Americans agree: the enormous and inappropriate role that money plays in American elections.
A CBS poll found that 71 percent of Americans support limits on individual contributions to campaigns, and 76 percent support limits on spending from outside groups. These numbers included Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
One of the most popular attempts to limit the influence of money at the state level has been the creation of “matching funds” programs. Florida has such a program, in which any money a candidate raises from a contribution of $250 or less is matched by a contribution of tax dollars to the candidate’s campaign. In exchange, the candidates must agree to limit their total campaign spending, although the limits are set fairly high.
Unfortunately, the recent elections in Florida demonstrate some severe flaws in the matching funds program.
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater both ran essentially unopposed. Adam Smith at the Tampa Bay Times wrote that “their… opponents, Thaddeus Hamilton and William Rankin, were no-name Democrats with virtually no money and even less support from the state Democratic party.”
Putnam and Atwater cruised to re-election and faced opponents who did not even qualify for matching funds because of how few private contributions they received. Despite the lopsided nature of these elections, the two incumbents each collected more than $400,000 in public matching funds.
They both used these funds to run self-serving political ads portraying themselves as dedicated stewards of the public trust. The irony of wasting taxpayer dollars to communicate a message of being accountable to Florida taxpayers was apparently lost on both candidates.
Smith noted that both Putnam and Atwater are seen as prime candidates for the Florida governor’s race in 2018. The matching funds system provided them both with a way to bolster their public image and name recognition at the taxpayer’s expense.
Atwater’s behavior in spending this money is particularly troubling. Floridians re-elected a CFO who apparently has no qualms about spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on needless political advertising.
An ideal campaign finance system would eliminate private contributions and provide each candidate with an equal and strictly limited amount of public funding. Such a system would both reverse the explosion of election spending and ensure that opposing candidates operate on a truly level playing field.
Candidates should be elected on the strength of their ideas, not on their ability to raise vast sums of money. Until more significant reforms are made to the funding of American elections, candidates will continue to prioritize fundraising over addressing the issues that affect their constituents.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 11/24/2014]
