Campaign Financing

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Campaign Finance Archives page.

Be a Big Wig: How to Turn Your Spare Change Jar into Political Influence

Very few Americans give money to political campaigns. In the 2000 presidential primary, there were only 774 thousand donors among all four candidates (that’s out of 200 million Americans of voting age! That is way less than 1% of us!)

How can we encourage more voters to give? Is it even important for voters to give? How do we ensure that Jane Middleclass’s $50 donation is as influential as Jane Millionare’s $2,000 donation?

A new study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) reveals new facts, figures, insights, and solutions to the campaign finance problems plaguing our election system.

Problem: Small donors squelched

According to CFI’s research on the 2000 presidential campaign, most donors contributed small amounts, but big contributions accounted for most of the money.

Out of the 774 thousand donors, 568 thousand gave $100 or less. However, these small donations made up less than 20% of the total money donated by individuals. 60% of the money from individuals came from people who wrote big checks. Therefore, most candidates focus their attention on the few who can give large contributions instead of the many who can give small contributions.

Solution: Three (or four)-for-one matching

Under current law, government funds provide a dollar for dollar match of the first $250 of an individual contribution. In other words, if Jane Middleclass donates $250, the candidate receives a total of $500.

But $250 is too much to ask from most people. To empower the small donor, the CFI Task Force recommends a three-for-one match for the first $100 of each individual contribution. Lowering the contribution level and raising the government match would help small donors to keep up with the big wigs.

On November 21, 2003, Senators McCain and Feingold introduced a bill that would do just that. S 1913 provides a four-to-one match for individual donations. This bill has only been introduced in the Senate. It has not yet been debated.

Problem: Draining the treasury

How would this three (or four)-for-one match be funded?

Do we really want to take more money out of the treasury when we have this big deficit looming over our heads?

Solution: An almost unnoticeable change on the income tax return form

Somewhere on your income tax return you can choose to allot three of your tax dollars to a public fund that helps pay for campaigns. The CFI task force recommends increasing that voluntary checkoff from $3 to $5. They claim that this small change would be enough to fund the three-for-one match.

Problem: Candidates are hitting their heads on the spending ceiling

If candidates opt-out of public funding, then the three-to-one match is useless.

Most of the front-runners opt out of public financing because the spending limits are too low (Bush, Dean, and Kerry have opted out). If a candidate accepts public funding for her or his campaign, she or he cannot spend more than $45 million (for 2004). While that sounds like a huge sum, it is really not that much when you consider the commercials, the radio ads, the mailings, the traveling, the staff, and, most importantly, how much that other gal or guy is spending.

Campaign fundraising and spending is mostly about outspending your opponent. It doesn’t matter how much or how little you spend as long as you are spending more than your challenger. So if one candidate denies public funding and breaks through the spending ceiling, the other candidates will have to do the same in order to keep up.

Solution: Raising the spending limit?

CFI’s proposed solution is simply to raise the spending limit. While this certainly solves the problem temporarily, future campaigns may speed up, raise more funds, and bump up against the spending ceiling yet again.

Imposing an absolute limit on campaign spending would certainly solve this problem, but some say that limiting spending limits free speech. For more on this idea, click here.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the relationship between free speech and campaign spending. They are expected to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2000 by December 19. Check back with WomenMatter for the full details of the ruling.

Power in your spare change jar

If all of CFI’s recommendations were written into law, the average American could have considerable influence over elections by donating the contents of her spare change jar to her favorite candidate (how much do you think is in there anyway?).

With or without a three-to-one match, small donations would be more potent if there were more of them. The more average Janes donate, the more power for each average Jane.

WomenMatter encourages each of its readers to send $5 to the candidate of her choice. We can make a difference.

To read more about campaign financing, click here. To discuss this topic with other WomenMatter readers, join one of our online forums. When you’re ready, contact your representatives and let them know what you think about campaign finance.

Article Posted on: 12/15/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top