Taxpayer dollars should be used for legitimate public responsibilities, such as maintaining roads, public safety, education, keeping communities clean, and paying down debt. Financing political campaigns should not become another government responsibility.
Public campaign-financing programs use taxpayer dollars to help qualifying candidates run for office. Supporters argue that these programs reduce candidates’ reliance on large donors and give more candidates enough money to compete. Public financing tries to make up for differences in how much candidates can raise. Candidates are entitled to equal treatment under the law, not equal campaign funding from taxpayers.
Fundraising is part of running for office. Candidates must make their case, build an organization, and persuade people that their campaigns deserve support. Some will raise more because they attract more willing donors or build stronger fundraising organizations. That does not create a public emergency that taxpayers must solve. Government has no duty to make political competition easier for candidates who struggle to attract voluntary support.
The difference between private contributions and public financing is that a private donor chooses whether to support a candidate. You do not get that choice with public financing. Once government collects tax dollars, public officials and program rules determine which campaigns qualify for funding, even if you oppose everything that candidate stands for.
These concerns are not theoretical. San Francisco allows eligible non-incumbent mayoral candidates to receive as much as $1.2 million in public funds. Candidates for the Board of Supervisors may receive up to $255,000. That is a substantial amount of public money for individual political campaigns.
New York City shows where that money can go. Anthony Weiner’s 2013 mayoral campaign received $1,652,074 in public funds after he had resigned from Congress following a sexting scandal. A later city audit found numerous reporting, contribution, and spending violations. The audit required the campaign to return nearly $196,000 in remaining public funds and assessed roughly $65,000 in separate penalties.
Former New York Assemblyman Vito Lopez provides another example. His 2013 City Council campaign received $92,350 in public matching funds after New York’s Legislative Ethics Commission imposed a $330,000 civil penalty for misuse of office related to his treatment of female staff members. The program did not ask taxpayers whether they believed his conduct made him unworthy of their support. It applied its eligibility rules and distributed their money.
Both campaigns qualified for and received public funds under the rules in place at the time. That is exactly the problem. The eligibility rules determine who receives taxpayer money, not whom taxpayers would voluntarily support. No government formula can reflect which candidates individual taxpayers believe deserve their support.
Public financing also changes government’s role in elections. Government should establish clear rules, apply them equally, count votes accurately, and protect the integrity of the process. It should not become a financial participant in the campaigns of those seeking control over it. Public officials decide who qualifies, how much candidates receive, and how the rules are enforced. That turns government from the referee into one of the players.
A political campaign is not a public service like police protection or repairing a bridge. It should not be funded as though it were one. Every dollar spent on a campaign is a dollar that cannot serve another public purpose, reduce debt, provide tax relief, or remain with taxpayers.
In a republic, candidates should compete for votes, volunteers, endorsements, and contributions under the same laws. They should persuade citizens to vote for them and willing supporters to fund them. Government should remain the neutral administrator of political competition rather than using taxpayer dollars to adjust the resources available to candidates.
Americans do not owe politicians campaign contributions. They should not be compelled to make them through their tax bills. Taxpayer dollars should serve the public, and money government does not need should be returned through lower taxes. Government should administer elections fairly, not use public money to tip the scales.
Anthony Velasquez, MBA, is Pacific Research Institute’s Communications Specialist.