maniakes: Tax-funded campaign idea

maniakes (

maniakes) wrote,
@ 2008-04-23 10:31:00

Tax-funded campaign idea
I think I've come up with an idea for public campaign financing which I don't hate.

Currently, on your income taxes, you can check a box to designate $3 of your taxes to go towards the presidential campaign matching fund. That money funds all the qualified candidates who accept the matching funds. I leave that box unchecked because I want the likes of Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson to pay their own ways.

My idea is that rather than that checkbox diverting into a shared fund, you instead have a portion of your taxes saved up, and 3 months in advance of each election you have the option of saving it for later, abandoning it into the public treasury, or designating it to candidates of your choosing.

The first variation I came up with was a $10-20 fee each election cycle to register to vote (waived if you're below a certain income threshold), which (after deducting administrative costs) is paid to the campaign funds of the candidates you designate while registering. This variation won't work, as it's unconstitutional for good reason.

In either proposal, additional contributions and independant issue advocacy are absolutely permitted. The purpose of this proposal is to increase the portion of campaign finance which comes from the broad electorate, thus diminishing the relative influence of large donors, which is the primary goal of public finance proposals.

(Post a new comment)

makellan
2008-04-23 06:02 pm UTC (link)

The primary goal is, as you say, to spread the donations out to small donors. This has been happening already via the internet, but I think that this election cycle is slightly special because more people care.
Therefore, I propose to make more people care as a means to get them to donate more. The best way I see is a method we've discussed before: make everyone who reasonably can, vote. Either by direct fees if you don't vote or "tax cuts" if you do, which amount to the same thing.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

maniakes
2008-04-23 06:28 pm UTC (link)

And as we've discussed before, I am skeptical of that because I feel that casting a properly informed vote involves a degree of understanding of issues and candidates that most people don't have the time and inclination for, and forcing people to vote will just add noise to the system. Yes, many of the people we'd drag to the poll would put more effort into researching politics than they do now, but their votes will generally be less informed than the average volunteer voter.

Even people like us who follow politics as a hobby tend to have astonishing gaps in our knowledge. I know my congressman's name and party and in broad strokes I know a few of his political positions (he's pro-war, pro-free-trade, and takes a wide stance on immigration and social security), but I have no idea what votes he's cast. I'm pretty sure all my state legislators are Democrats, but that's all I know about them. I know the name of one of my Senators and I know she's a Democrat, but that's all I know about her; I suspect my other Senator is also a Democrat, but I'm really at a total loss beyond that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kamili 2008-04-23 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	MegaVote is a useful tool for keeping up to date on your local politicos. It tells you each week what your folks have voted. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	maniakes 2008-04-23 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	I'll have to take a look at that. Thanks! (Reply to this)(Parent)

makellan
2008-04-23 08:46 pm UTC (link)

Actually, you're the one who follows politics as a hobby. I only look up relevant bits for debate purposes. I have positions, but know almost nothing about my personal elected officials. When a vote comes up, I simply match up my ideals against theirs and see who comes closest. Only in rare cases or for fact-checking would I investigate someone's voting record.
Though, with more of the comments read, I'll try MegaVote.
Also, I agree with

herufeanor in that anything that makes me turn in more forms to the government is more of a pain than it's worth. I could go for a system where you could opt-in for such a service and you could mail, call or go online to choose who your money goes to this cycle. I'm not sure that it's a good idea as it really creates quite a bit more government waste in the form of people handing out the forms, people accepting and processing the forms, paper, printing and postage, computer systems to manage the process, finance people and systems to manage the money and keep it visible to the campaign finance watchdog groups.... and then some. All to incentivise the average voter to throw 10 bucks a year at their favorite candidate.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	maniakes 2008-04-23 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	Wait. You're arguing against me on the grounds of reduced government bureaucracy, and stride is arguing against me on economic liberty grounds? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	stride 2008-04-23 11:30 pm UTC (link)
	I thought it's standard proceedure to argue with you on principle? ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	maniakes 2008-04-23 10:38 pm UTC (link)
	A key part of me not hating this proposal is that it not only doesn't compel support of candidates (as most other public financing schemes do), but also that it's a nonexclusive form of financing. My understanding of the first amendment requires that you be able to voluntarily spend your own money to promote issues and candidates you favor. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	stride 2008-04-23 11:22 pm UTC (link)
	Teddy is my favorite president, hands down. Second is FDR. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…