The Reform That Hurts

Credit...The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
February 28, 1977, Page 26Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive

Vice President Mondale has undertaken to put together the Carter Administration's legislative package on electoral reform. As outlined by President Carter his latest news conference, the package will cover changes in the Electoral College, ‘easier registration voters, and public financing of campaigns for the House and Senate. The first two proposals may cause some controversy but among most members 67 Congress, the third—public financing—isthe reform that hurts.

When finally formulated, the public‐financing proposal will probably be modeled on tie plan put into effect Presidential politics last year. Private contributions would be permitted in the primaries with public matching funds available once a candidate had raised enough money on his own to prove he was a serious contender. Once nominated by their parties, the candidates in the general election would draw only public money.

Now nothing is dearer to a Congressman's heart than his own re‐election. The effect of public financing would be to encourage candidates of the weaker party in each state or district to fight strongly for seats that now go by default or are only feebly contested. Approximately two‐thirds of the nation's Congressional districts are generally safe for their incumbents. The holders these seats see no reason to allow public funds to be used to finance their opponents.

But there are better arguments against public financing of Congressional elections than mere self‐interest.

Private contributions are useful forms of political self‐expression, no different in principle from volunteering time and work or voting itself. The transferral political funds‐raising from the private to the public sector would further aggrandize the state and diminish the individual.

Experienced politicians also point out that it usually takes a lot of money to defeat an entrenched incumbent or a glamorous newcomer. With more astronauts, actors and celebrities of various kinds entering politics, this more than a theoretical worry for the ordinary candidate. In some districts public financing might will give a wide advantage to a local political machine or famous face.

Yet on balance, the weight of the argument is on the side of public financing. Private financing of campaigns has in too many instances ceased to be a matter of $50 or $100 contributions by neighbors and friends. Instead, it has become the application of financial muscle by nationally organized interest groups. According Common Cause, interest groups gave $22 million Congressional campaigns in 1976, a whopping increase over the amount given two years earlier. Labor unions contributed heavily as usual, while corporations and industry groups formed their own political action committees and almost matched them stride for stride. The medical profession, the dairy lobby, and ideological outfits of both right and left were also active in dispersing funds throughout the nation.

The power of this private money and the web of implicit obligations that it creates are likely to erode the local autonomy and diversity of politics more than would the intrusion of public funds.