|
|
| |
| |
Untitled
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
Long before voters register their preferences on Election Day, the
flow of political money determines which candidates are able to mount
viable campaigns for federal office. Providing public incentives for
small political contributions could help average Americans play a more
meaningful role in influencing who has the resources to run effective
campaigns and win public office.
Most modern political campaigns
are funded predominantly by a small number of large donors rather than
a cross section of the American public. Congressional candidates in
2002, for example, collected more than half of the money they raised
from individuals in contributions of at least $1000—from just 0.09% of
the voting age public.
Our current campaign finance system
grants these contributors disproportionate influence over who runs for
office and who wins elections—and thereby who dictates public policy.
Grassroots candidates who take positions that do not appeal to wealthy
donors have difficulty competing with well-funded opponents.
Finally,
many ordinary citizens are alienated from the process as they perceive
that their contributions—and even votes—matter less than the large
donations that define the political field of play.
Reform
advocates frequently discuss setting contribution limits at levels that
average Americans can afford to give, establishing spending limits to
dampen the fundraising “arms race,” and providing direct public
financing of candidate campaigns as potential solutions to the problem
of big money dominance in politics. Another solution that has received
significantly less scholarly and public attention is providing public
incentives to encourage small contributions. By leveraging the power of
the Internet and harnessing promising recent fundraising trends, it may
be possible to encourage a wave of small contributions that will help
balance out the undue influence of large donors.
This paper
provides a thorough canvass of existing knowledge about small
contribution incentive programs at the federal level and throughout the
five states that feature similar initiatives—Arkansas, Minnesota, Ohio,
Oregon, and Virginia. Our conclusion is that—especially in the new age
of Internet fundraising—a well-designed program can play a significant
role in increasing the role of small contributors in our democracy and
serve as a helpful tool for grassroots candidates seeking to run
campaigns geared towards average voters, not wealthy donors. We make
several recommendations about how to best design a contribution
incentive program to accomplish these goals. Our most significant
findings are outlined below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
