Taxpayer-Financed Elections
Recommendation
Policymakers should eliminate the existing judicial taxpayer-financed campaign system and protect citizens against similar proposals for other races.
Background
North Carolina's history of taxpayer-financing campaign systems
• North Carolina had a failed partial taxpayer-financed system (public financing) for governor races.
• Despite this failure, in 2002, the money was taken from this program and put into a taxpayer-financed judicial campaign system. This program provides taxpayer funding to candidates that agree to limit their spending.
The failure of the judicial taxpayer-financed campaign system
• The legislation creating the system expressly stated that no money would come from the General Fund to support the program.
• The program was supposed to be funded by taxpayers voluntarily diverting $3 of their taxes to the judicial campaign-finance system. The system also was supposed to be funded by attorney contributions.
• As is the case with taxpayer-financed systems across the country, the public did not support the program. Only 6-7 percent of taxpayers decided to divert $3 of their taxes to the system.
• Not surprisingly, the legislature did exactly what it said it would not do. It took money from the General Fund (general taxpayer dollars) to fund the program. It also required attorneys to make $50 contributions.
• Despite all this failure, there is even talk of a pilot test for legislative races. These systems likely are unconstitutional, and at best are unethical.
Why Taxpayer-Financed Elections Should Be Eliminated
The lack of public support is clear. When only 6-7 percent of taxpayers give $3 to a program, even though it means no increase in taxes, the public is making its opinion known loud and clear.
Forced speech. Taxpayers are forced to support candidates that they oppose. Even if a candidate's position on an issue is repugnant or against an individual's religious beliefs, the taxpayer still must support the candidate.
The system chills the speech of traditional candidates. When candidates who decide not to receive taxpayer subsidies for their campaigns (traditional candidates) exceed a certain amount of spending, their subsidized opponents receive "rescue funds" to equalize the spending. As a result, by trying to get their message out, traditional candidates will find they are helping their opposition.
It is an incumbency protection law. Challengers often need to overcome built-in advantages that incumbents have, such as name recognition, by spending more than incumbents. Through the "rescue fund" scheme, these systems prevent challengers from being able to do that.
Chills the speech of independent groups. Even independent groups that spend a certain amount of money on what are called independent expenditures can trigger rescue funds for a subsidized candidate. Independent expenditures mean communications that expressly support or oppose a candidate.
For many candidates, taking taxpayer dollars is involuntary. The system would be voluntary if traditional candidates were not punished for their choice not to take taxpayer dollars. From chilling speech to excessive reporting requirements, the judicial campaign system punishes traditional candidates so that they, for all practical purposes, have to take taxpayer dollars.
Fallacy of the high-participation rate. System proponents argue that a high participation rate of candidates is evidence that the system works. Given the stacked deck against traditional candidates, it is amazing that participation is not 100 percent.
Analyst: Daren Bakst, J.D., LL.M.
Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst
919/828.3876 • dbakst-at-johnlocke.org
|
