Changing the CA Political Fundraising Game
Comments (0)
(Creative Commons)
In a Q and A with Neon Tommy, Dr. Trent Lange, head of the pro-Proposition 15 campaign, explains how his measure will be a first step in opening the California political process to those without personal wealth or the backing of rich interest groups.
If the proposition passes on the June 8 ballot, candidates running for Secretary of State can gain campaign financing from the state by collecting 7,500 signatures along with $5 per signer.
The public funds will be raised by hiking the lobbyist registration fee from $12.50 a year to $350 a year, which the state Legislative Analyst's Office says will raise about $8 million over four years.
A candidate who opts into the public money will receive a minimum of $1 million for the primary and $1.3 million for the general election, and a maximum of $4 million for the primary and $5.3 million for the general election.
Lange, himself a former lobbyist and current president of the hedge
fund firm Lange Fund Management, LLC., believes this test run with the
Secretary of State race could be key to expanding public financing to
other statewide offices and possibly even local ones.
fund firm Lange Fund Management, LLC., believes this test run with the
Secretary of State race could be key to expanding public financing to
other statewide offices and possibly even local ones.
He says California not spending money on state political campaigns is
"crazy," and believes it's the only way to recruit candidates who will
truly represent the interests of regular voters.
This Thursday, supporters of Proposition 15 will be hosting a campaign kick-off in Los Angeles , which will include a panel discussion that reviews the benefits of the proposition.
Q: Why should Californians fund political campaigns when the state already faces a major budget crisis and struggles to pay for more basic public goods like education and prisons?
Part of reason that state is in such a crisis is that politicians spend too much time fundraising. We know they often spend two hours a day dialing for dollars.
And while they're deciding where the budget is going, lobbyists are handing checks to them and telling them how to resolve it and trying to save their employers share of the budget money.
The fundraising game takes away from the important issues.
...
And the money raised to fund prop. 15 would not be paid for by tax payers, it would be paid for by lobbyists.
Q: What about the argument that limiting private contributions, even if it only applies to candidates who accept public funding, limits free speech?
This is public financing. It is a different beast. It only has contribution limits if candidates opt into the public funding option, which is completely voluntary.
Q: If there's not enough money to support the amount of candidates who want the public option, prop.15 allows the candidates to accept private contributions to compensate. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the proposition?
No, it doesn't defeat the purpose because the candidates will not have received the bulk of funding through private funding.
It's one thing to have donors contribute, to raise as much as possible. But it's another thing for a candidate to need to raise $50,000, at the most, from all these different people.
"Can you give me $1,000?"
If a donor says yes but on the condition of a favor, you don't have to go to them. You don't need to do favors.
It's very different than to have to frantically raise money under the current system.
Q: Why should Californians pay for the political campaigns of candidates they don't support?
Who do you want candidates to be beholden to? They should be beholden to voters.
We already pay for everything of elected officials whose beliefs we don't believe in. We pay their staff, we pay their health care, and all these different aspects.
I think people think that it's just crazy we pay for everything, except for determining which ones have a chance of getting elected. Public financing makes sure there are candidates that represent the interests and needs of voters who aren't wealthy or don't have wealthy donors.
Currently people are having to choose the lesser of two evils, because there are no candidates who truly represent the interests of regular voters that can get enough funds.
Public funds will be funding candidates with a range of political ideas. And it gives people choice. In that mix, these candidates can represent the ideas they care about unlike the current system.
Q: It seems like only those who already have personal wealth or special interest support will be able to gather 7,500 signatures along with the $5 per signer.
It's not going to stop candidates with big interest funding from getting public funding if they want it. But it will make sure that candidates who don't have those special interests behind them can get some kind of funding.
There are large numbers of grassroots that don't have money. And they don't feel candidates in their party represent their interests, because many candidates don't care about grassroots. They care about big donors that will give them money.
Those who appeal to clubs can inspire grass roots to give them five dollars, and can probably qualify for public funding.
Q: The grassroots organizations you refer to identify with the major parties. What about third party candidates? How will they be able to gather twice the normal number of qualify contributions, as required by the proposition, without name recognition or infrastructure?
It's definitely a lot. It's possible it's too high but that's why you do a pilot project.
We want to make sure the candidates who receive the funding are viable. You're going to have to have a network of true believers who are going to work hard for you to gather that many signatures. And you have to convince a lot of people to give you $5.
Third party candidates also can receive partial funding if they reach 3,700 qualifying contributions. It would be 25 percent of the funding a normal candidate would receive for the general election. And that's way more than the Green Party spent in the last gubernatorial race, for example.
Q: Does this system face the same problems that the presidential matching funds system faces, where presidential candidates like President Obama opt out of public funds because they can raise more on their own?
It's something people are concerned about. We've kept that in mind.
The presidential system worked well when created but it doesn't provide enough funds for candidates now. Plus, the presidential system doesn't have fair fight matching funds, [ a provision in the proposition where more public funds kick in, up to the maximum, when opponents or outside groups throw more money into the race].
Q: But how would this model be expanded to other offices?
We believe there will be specific fees for groups like lobbyists that will pay for it. For example, a quick study done in legislature shows that putting a 30 cent fee on every insurance contract in the state would pay for the office of Insurance Commissioner.
And there are plenty of lawyers that can pay fees for Attorney General.
So we haven't done each of those studies. Right now we're only focusing on Secretary of State. We have specific fees that make sense and the cost of this is so very small, really, relatively.
Q: If proposition 15 does pass, do you anticipate it facing problems in the courts?
The lobbyists are suing on the question of whether we can have lobbyists pay for prop. 15. Lobbyists have already sued three times before to get prop. 15 thrown off the ballot. They say it's not fair to pick on lobbyists, but the courts rejected that argument. They said to let the people decide. Now lobbyists are taking it to court again.
If they win, we'll find other sources of revenue to support public financing.
But we expect to be open, and know we may have to tweak some things. The 7,500 signatures, plus $5 per signature, may be too high, for example. But it's something the legislature can amend later.
