Should Public Funds for Political Campaigns be Increased to Keep Private Interests out of Politics? (H.R. 424)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H.R. 424?
(Updated August 4, 2018)
This bill — the Empowering Citizens Act — would make changes to the way that public funding (taxpayer dollars) is given to presidential campaigns and candidates in general elections. The bill would also establish a system of public financing for congressional elections. All changes, if this bill passes, would start after January 1, 2016.
- Matching (one-to-one) the first $250 (or less) of each individual contribution that an eligible Presidential candidate receives during the primary campaign;
- Financing major national party nominating conventions and some eligible minor parties' conventions;
- Funding general election campaigns for major (and eligible minor) party nominees.
This bill would increase matched funds to six-to-one for primaries. The amount of aggregate individual contributions would be set at $1,000, and the total amount of payments that could be made to a presidential primary candidate would be capped at $300 million. These totals would be adjusted for inflation beginning after 2015.
New requirements for presidential candidates who choose to use the public financing system would increase the donation thresholds that candidates must raise from $5,000 in each of 20 states, to $25,000 in each state with contribution limits of $250 per candidate. These candidates would also have to commit to accept public financing in both the primary and general elections.
Presidential primary candidates would be prohibited from accepting contributions or bundled contributions (a bunch of small contributions rolled into one) from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).
The tax check-off for contributions to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund would be increased from $3 to $20. It does not increase a person’s tax bill or decrease their refund.
Argument in favor
This bill would make the voice of average Americans in the political process stronger at the expense of the rich, and a six-to-one public match for contributions under $250 is a great way to empower normal (non-billionaires) people in this country.
Argument opposed
Campaign contributions are political speech, and people should be able to speak with money in any way they want. If candidates can raise more $$$ outside of the public campaign finance system, even with this increase, why would they bother using it?
Impact
Americans that would make campaign contributions, candidates in presidential primaries and election or congressional elections, political parties, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
Cost of H.R. 424
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
Of Note: Public funding for presidential elections has been available since 1976, but proposals for public funding date back as far as 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt suggested it in his State of the Union. Every major presidential nominee from 1976 to 2004 has used public funds for the general election.
President Obama was a proponent of public campaign financing when competing in the 2008 Democratic primary — but he and his eventual Republican opponent Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) opted out after recognizing that their campaigns would be better funded without the limitations. President Obama also became the first ever major-party candidate to decline public funding for both the primary and the general election.
Campaign finance underwent a drastic change after the Supreme Court’s ruling in , in which the Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures by nonprofit corporations were prohibited by the First Amendment.
The principles underpinning that decision have led to the elimination of restrictions on political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other association, which has been heavily criticized by some as drowning out the voices of average voters.
In-Depth: The 2012 presidential elections were the most expensive elections in U.S. history, costing an estimated $6 billion. Of those dollars, $970 million were spent by outside groups among ‘super PACs’, and another $2 billion was spent solely on the presidential election.
That was followed up in 2014 by the most expensive midterm election in history, which cost about $3.77 billion despite having 100,000 fewer donors than the previous midterm election.
Versions of this proposal were introduced in both the 112th Congress and the 113th Congress, but neither proposal ever advanced out of committee to receive a vote.
Media:
-
Sponsoring Rep. David Price (D-NC) Press Release
-
Democracy 21
-
People for the American Way (In Favor)
-
Politico (Previous Version)
- Federal Elections Commission (Context)
Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user P.O. Arnäs)
The Latest
-
🌎 Are You Ready To Take Action Against Climate Change?Scientists claim that last year "smashed" the record for the hottest year by a large margin , offering a "dramatic testimony" of read more... Environment
-
Should U.S. Implement a New Tax on AI to Fund Worker Benefits?The debate As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into our society. While leaders in AI read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health
-
IT: ⛑️ It's American Red Cross Giving Day, and... How will you give back today?Welcome to Wednesday, March 27th, philanthropists and entrepreneurs... It's American Red Cross Giving Day - a time to ensure the read more...