Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

Dec. 5, 2007

Much-Needed Legislation Would Overhaul the Financing of Presidential Campaigns

$1 Billion Projected to Be Spent in 2008 Race to Buy the Presidency; Bills Introduced Today in House and Senate Would Curtail Influence of Wealthy Interests

 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Public Citizen today heartily endorsed new legislation introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives that would overhaul the faltering presidential public financing program. The bills are by Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.); and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), David Price (D-N.C.), Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Mike Castle (R-Del.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.).

First implemented in 1976, the presidential public financing system worked admirably for decades in helping to level the playing field among presidential candidates. Under the system, challengers defeated sitting incumbent presidents half the time. But its limits on campaign fundraising and spending have languished because the system has not been updated in more than 30 years. Today, very few presidential candidates agree to participate in the public funding system because they can raise much more money from wealthy special interests and because they believe they could be at a disadvantage compared to other candidates who do not opt to take public financing.

“The 2008 presidential election will likely be the first $1 billion presidential campaign in history,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “Most of this money will be coming from the very same wealthy corporations and industry groups that have business pending before the federal government, and they expect favors, access and even jobs in return.”

Enacted after the Watergate election scandals, the presidential public financing system is supposed to reduce the clout of special interest money in presidential campaigns by providing qualified candidates with significant amounts of public funds in the primary election and nearly full public financing in the general election. Public financing dramatically reduced the need for presidential candidates to seek money from wealthy corporate interests who regularly benefit from their contributions and bundle campaign money from others as well.

Prior to the 2000 elections, only three presidential candidates – each independently wealthy – opted out of the public financing system in the primary elections. Since 2000, however, the list of candidates opting out has swelled. In the upcoming 2008 election, few serious presidential contenders are expected to stay in the public financing system. This time, candidates are choosing to forgo public money not because they are independently wealthy but because they can raise and spend more money than if they accepted the public dollars. The consensus of many: The current presidential public financing system must be updated.

“The presidential public financing program of 1976 has not kept up with the times,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen. “The spending ceilings are unrealistically low and don’t keep pace with what is being spent. Further, spending ceilings are fixed in stone. They are not even increased to match excessive spending by candidates who opt out of the system.”

 The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would:

  • Increase the spending ceilings for publicly funded candidates in both the primary (from about $50 million to $150 million) and general elections (from about $80 million to $100 million) to reflect the true costs of running a presidential campaign. The spending ceilings would be increased further if a non-participating candidate spends in excess of those ceilings.
  • Provide a 4-to-1 match of public funds to private donations of $200 or less, which means that a $200 contribution would provide $1,000 to a participating candidate in the primary elections. In the general election, participating candidates would receive all their campaign budget in public funds in exchange for giving up special interest contributions.
  • Enhance the funding source for the program by increasing the voluntary tax check-off system from $3 per individual to $10. The check-off does not add any tax burden to taxpayers; it simply allows a taxpayer to designate a portion of his or her taxes to help clean up presidential elections.
  • Prohibit the national parties from using unregulated special interest money to pay for their national party nominating conventions, better known as party “soirées.”
  • Require presidential campaigns to disclose all their fundraising “bundlers” – those who receive credit from a campaign for collecting a large number of contributions from individuals, usually in an effort to curry favor with the presidential candidate – and the amounts they raise.

LEARN MORE about the presidential public financing system, its strengths and weaknesses, and how to repair the program.

###

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.