Washblog

I asked the participants in this discussion for permission to republish it on Washblog. Dave Thomas, John King, and Representative Hunter said yes. A staff member in Representative Tom's campaign office replied to me, granting permission.   However, he indicated that, because this is an important issue to Representative Tom, "he could spend more time with a response outside of campaign season. Right now, Rodney is spending all his waking hours fighting to defeat an incumbent so he can represent his district in the State Senate."  In other words -- as I understand it -- their preference is to hold off on publication until he's further along in his research and thinking on the issue.   Fair enough.

What you'll find below is the exchange that involves Representative Hunter, starting with Dave Thomas' original commentary (url descriptions are slightly edited for Washblog publication):

Commentary by Dave Thomas
Private campaign financing is the key log in the log jam which enables special interests to block Medicare for All at our federal level, purchases of Canadian medicines at our Washington state level and other extensions of our freedoms and opportunities for all. It also enables these special interests to obtain billions of tax cuts and subsidies paid for by our taxpayers. Enacting public campaign financing should take precedence over most other legislation to clear the way for other needed legislation.

To find out more about campaign financing in Washington State, go to the state Public Disclosure Commission page.   To learn about the major private contributions to our 48th legislative District candidates in 2004, including Ross Hunter and Rodney Tom, who are running as Democrats for re-election this fall, go to the PDC's Factbooks page

We strongly support Ross Hunter's and Rodney Tom's candidacies, endorsing them in every issue of this newsletter and passing out their brochures to all Lake Hills Democratic voters. The fact book cited above shows their proven ability to raise campaign money from private contributors. Public campaign financing might remove this advantage. It would also remove any question that they are beholden to their contributors and would allow them to spend more time  discussing issues with voters instead of fund raising.

I have asked them to inform us whether they will support public campaign financing for state and local offices in Washington. These are their responses.

Response by Representative Ross Hunter
[On my invitation, Representative Ross reviewed this prior to publication on Washblog, and made two small edits. NM]
Campaign financing is an important issue, with a lot of competing interests to balance. For example, do we want to spend public money supporting the Nazi viewpoint? They have the right to have press conferences on the capitol steps (which they are doing Monday in Olympia) but I'm not sure I want to have one of their candidates in every race in WA getting their message out with public money.

It's important to know that the voters of WA eliminated publicly funded campaigns in the early 90s with an initiative that was overwhelmingly supported by the voters, so this is a tricky issue. [Note: This was Initiative to the Legislature, 134, 1992.  NM]

Here are my key concerns:

• Transparency.   Every single dime spent on a campaign should be public, with voters knowing where it comes from. This includes third-party expenditures. The information should be timely. This would prevent the mess with the Attorney General race last year.
• Limits. I love the limits on campaign financing. Nobody gives me more than about 1-2% of what it takes to run a campaign. While any contribution can affect how legislators think about issues, this basic level keeps the total impact manageable.
• Freedom of speech.There should be no limits on what someone can say, how often they say it, or to whom they say it. This is the essence of the first amendment to the US Constitution, and the fly in the ointment of lots of reasonable-sounding  attempts at limiting the influence of money on politics. While I disagree with Grover Norquist on tax policy, he has a right to have his position heard by the public, including the right to take out advertisements on behalf of candidates he thinks will support his position. The same is true of George Soros.

The system we have in WA is pretty reasonable. When I was a challenger I wanted to limit the amount of money going to the (at the time Republican) establishment in this district, but in the end I out raised my opponent significantly. This wasn't because I was beholden to any corporate hegemony, it was because I was a better candidate and the people I talked to thought I'd be a stronger legislator and that I would win. They were right.

I would be willing to create a system somewhat like the presidential one, with voluntary limits and people choosing to contribute the money. I'd be willing to entertain some other ways of doing this that were more about creating blind trusts for campaign contributions, but they would be harder to implement. I'm not sure you take money out of politics, but we should darn sure know where it's coming from and how it is being spent.

Representative Ross Hunter, 48th Legislative District, hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov (360) 786-7936, JLOB 305, Capitol Campus, Olympia, WA 98504

Response by John E. King, Chair, Policy Committee, Washington Public Campaigns
[Introductory paragraph removed, as it addressed the statements of both representatives. NM]
Public funding of political campaigns opens the political process to more candidates, diminishes the time and expense required for fundraising, decreases the disproportionate influence of wealthy private interests in political processes, reduces real and apparent conflicts of interest, and contributes to improved access to and respect for public officials and governmental processes. Elections are a public function, and there is no reason why the public should contract out its financing to interests which have selected themselves to influence the results for their own benefit.

Public funding of political campaigns has been a proven success for several years in Maine and Arizona. Comprehensive public funding programs have been recently enacted by the state of Connecticut and the city of Portland, Oregon, and will be on the ballot in California in November of this year.

We have determined that Washington State could fund a public financing program at a level that would encompass all the candidate and independent expenditures in all the state-level races during the 2001-2004 period for $3.36 per Washington resident per year. This is about the cost of a latte a year per Washington resident, an infinitesimal price to pay to buy back our democracy. It is a price we can afford and an opportunity we can't afford to pass up.

Regarding Representative Ross Hunter's comments

• For example, do we want to spend public money supporting
    the NAZI viewpoint?
  Public funding programs are customarily designed to make public funds available to a candidate only when the candidate has demonstrated a significant level of popular support via small contributions from individuals. Candidates with little or no public support are unlikely to be material beneficiaries of thoughtfully designed public financing programs.
• It's important to know that the voters of WA eliminated  publicly funded campaigns in the early 90s with an initiative that was overwhelmingly supported by the voters, so this is a tricky issue.
  The 1992 initiative actually favored campaign finance reform to limit the influence of private interests in elections. The one-sentence ban on publicly funded elections itself opposed the main thrust of the 36-section initiative. authorizing public funding of political campaigns would not interfere with a voter mandate.
• Every single dime spent on a campaign should be public, with voters knowing where it comes from. This includes third-party expenditures. The information should be timely.
  Public disclosure has been in the system since the early 1970's. It has not provided a meaningful deterrent to the influence of private money in political campaigns and political decision-making. Most voters don't seek this information, and most who do seek it find it insufficiently clarifying to be a useful guide to voting or other effective action.
• I love the limits on campaign financing. Nobody gives me more than about 1% of what it takes to run a campaign. If you think this is sufficient to shift my vote on anything we should have a conversation....
  Representative Hunter may be unusual. Many candidates receive large portions of their contributions from sources representing similar or overlapping private interests, which may have a substantial influence on how the candidates vote on important issues once elected.
• There should be no limits of what someone can say, how often they say it, or to whom they say it. This is the essence of the first Amendment to the US Constitution, and the fly in the ointment of lots of reasonable-sounding attempts at limiting the influence of money on politics.
  A candidate's participation in public financing programs is voluntary. A candidate who prefers to spend private money without limits is free to do so. But bulging war chests give some candidates more access to "free speech" than others, and expensive media campaigns can drown others out. Most proposed public financing programs would provide enough funds to the publicly-funded candidates to level the playing field by matching privately-funded opponents - within reasonable limits. This would enhance the amount of free speech in a campaign, for the overall benefit of the public at large.
• ...I out-raised my opponent significantly. This wasn't because I was beholden to any corporate hegemony, it was because I was a better candidate and the people I talked to thought I'd be a stronger legislator and that I would win. They were right.
  It is certainly true that the better candidate, without being beholden to corporate or other interests, may raise more money than his or her opponent, and may win. But not necessarily. And sometimes excellent potential candidates are discouraged by the current system of private fundraising from running at all.
• I would be willing to create a system somewhat like the presidential one, with voluntary limits and people choosing to contribute the money. I'd be willing to entertain some other ways of doing this that were more about creating blind trusts for campaign contributions, but they would be harder to implement.
  The presidential program is similar in concept to what most public funding supporters advocate. The voluntary nature of the presidential program just means that a segment of the population are responsible for assuring its funding, albeit from general tax revenues. A similar program might well work in Washington State if there were a mechanism like a state income tax to serve as a vehicle. Blind trusts also seem similar in effect to general public financing programs - assuming equitable distributions of their funds - insofar as they would presumably provide a general funding source for political campaigns without the contributions of particular donors being used solely for their selected candidates.

Representative Hunter Responds to John King
I look forward, as usual, to hearing from my constituents on this issue.

I would take issue with Mr. King's comment about the public not looking at funding. The media does. Witness the Debra Senn - Mark Sidran race in 2004. The US Chamber of commerce funded a brutal attack on Senn. The media found out where the money came from and it shifted Democratic votes from Sidran to Senn in sympathy. The information became available to people, and it shifted their votes. This is what we want.

How do you create a public financing scheme that eliminates the use of "independent expenditures?" Will the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" abide by spending limits? The US Chamber of Commerce? NARAL? MoveOn.org?

How would you keep track of it? You can't make them not run ads - it's their money. I fear that any system would collapse under the weight of independent expenditures. It's better to have the candidates actually be responsible for their ads.

In the end, I don't think you can succeed at limiting spending on a contended race, and if you did it would have a huge benefit for the incumbent.

Re-Elect Rep. Ross Hunter, 48th Legislative District - Democrat
campaign phone: 425 637-8149, campaign fax: 425 671-0615, www.rosshunter.net

John King Responds to Representative Hunter
We appreciate Representative Hunter's interest in an open and earnest discussion of this issue.

Disclosure is certainly better than no disclosure. However, the Sidran-Senn circumstance is comparatively unusual. The overwhelming majority of private contributions provoke very little discernible attention or reaction. And even in that instance, did the disclosure of the source of the funds and the shifting of votes from Sidran to Senn really improve the quality of governance in Washington?

For all their visibility, independent expenditures amounted to only 13% of total expenditures in state-level Washington races during the 2001-2004 period. Public financing programs don't eliminate independent expenditures, but they can counter them. The Arizona public financing program, for example, provides matching funds -- up to prescribed limits -- to publicly financed candidates who are outspent by privately financed opponents. Independent expenditures made in opposition to publicly financed candidates or in favor of their opponents are treated as having been made by their opponents for purposes of triggering awards of matching funds to the publicly financed candidates. The independent expenditures are required to be reported immediately to the state, which promptly makes the appropriate computations and grant awards.

Regarding asserted advantages of public financing programs to incumbents, participation in such programs is entirely voluntary. Only if a candidate elects to participate is his or her overall spending limited. So if a challenger facing a formidable and well-financed incumbent wishes to spend more than the limit allowed to publicly funded candidates, he or she may opt for private financing instead. And especially with the potential enlargement of the pool of attractive candidates spurred by the availability of public funding, it is not unlikely that some publicly funded challengers will unseat even strong incumbents, not to mention weak ones. Sincerely, John E. King