Vote Yes on Proposition B: Right, while falling short

by Darryl Wilkinson

It is said that the cost of running for a seat in the Missouri Senate now costs, on average, about $180,000. Think about this in another way: a candidate must raise between $3,000 and $4,000 each week for a year in order to run for this public office!

Campaign costs are shutting potential candidates out of the process. Small wonder that candidates focus more effort on fund raising than on listening to voters. Small wonder that – finally – campaign reform has become an issue on the Nov. 7 election ballot in Missouri. But it’s not a perfect remedy for all election system ills, not by a long shot. But it should encourage more choice to voters. It should put more names on the ballot.

Proposition B, if approved by voters, would apply to candidates for statewide offices and the Missouri House and Senate. To qualify for public funds, candidates would be required to obtain a minimum number of “qualifying contributions.” Candidates for all political parties could qualify for public funds in both the primary and general elections. Independent candidates could also receive funds. Funding would come from an increase on one-hundredth of one percent in the annual franchise tax placed on larger corporations. Money collected from the tax would be deposited in a “Fair Elections Trust Fund,” maintained by the state treasurer. The Missouri Ethics Commission would administer the program.

This sounds well and good. But it is voluntary, meaning big money candidates won’t necessarily leave the private money troughs for what public finance offers. What Proposition B does provide is the means for more people to declare themselves candidates. Read that as more choice for voters.

Some oppose the idea of spending tax dollars on campaigns. They say this proposal didn’t originate in Missouri. Indeed, the majority of funds to secure the necessary signatures to place this initiative petition on the ballot came from out-of-state sources. The largest source of funding comes from an organization based in Washington, D.C., called Public Campaign.

Leaders of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce oppose the amendment, saying it is fiscally unsound. Although the initiative puts the cost at $13 million, opponents say there is no way to project the final financial impact since the fund must match the spending of candidates who choose not to participate in the program.

So, we must judge whether Proposition B saddles taxpayers with the cost of political campaigns for “radical, fringe candidates” or elevates the average Missouri voter to nearer the lobbyists and CEOs who now command the candidates’ attention.

Proposition B will require candidates to do three things: Show broad public support by collecting signatures and $5 donations from voters in their district, agree to spending limits and refuse private contributions. If a candidate can do this, the Fair Elections Fund will give the candidate money to run in the primary and in the general elections. Candidates’ spending would be controlled and available for review by voters.

So who pays? Proponents say those who have benefitted in the past would pay for the new system. In 1999, Missouri’s largest corporations saw their franchise tax rolled back 33 percent. The Fair Elections Act would be financed by reducing that tax break to 22 percent. Large corporations with over $2 million in assets would pay 1 cent for every $100 in assets. Proponents say Missouri’s largest corporations will still be paying less in taxes than they were a year ago. Realistically, however, corporate taxes are eventually passed on through the course of business to consumers, to you and me. Some corporation executive may sign the check but you and I will pay the price.

Perhaps campaign reform should be more simple. Full, complete and immediate disclosure on every dollar raised and expended by every candidate might be a better remedy. But realistically, this won’t happen. Meaningful reform other than by initiative petition isn’t likely. Winning candidates, who master the current system, and media, benefitting financially from campaign extravagance, aren’t about to lead the effort to reform.

Certainly there is no perfect or obvious “fix” to reform campaign finance. It seems that any idea offered from outside the sphere of status quo is damned by those who will be forced to use it. The politicians say Proposition B is wrong, but it appears on the ballot for all the right reasons. We remember how the same was said about the Hancock Amendment. And, as the old joke goes, Jefferson City learned to live with the Hancock Amendment while still figuring out a way to collect the taxes.

People without connections to lobbyists should be viewed as credible candidates for public office. On this point, voters must take the initiative. That’s what Proposition B is all about. Thus despite its shortcomings, we reason Proposition B deserves your vote. If it fails to generate more competition between candidates, if it fails to give Missouri a more responsive, fair and accountable campaign financing system, it most certainly will be the catalyst for somebody to come up with something better. – dw