McNulty's campaign reform
In his debate response, McNulty indicated he is a cosponsor of the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" bill in Congress. I think he's referring to HR 3099. This bill has done nothing in Congress since July of 2005, so again we can see how effective McNulty is in Congress.
Turning to the content of this bill, it does not include free postage for candidates. It gives free broadcast time to candidates: 30 minutes in primaries and 75 in general elections. That includes both TV and radio, and it works out to 60 ads of 30 seconds in primaries and 150 ads in a general election. Radio spots are usually 60 seconds, so it's only 30 spots and 75 spots. I spent $25K on TV and radio in 2004, and that bought a lot more than 150 spots. My district has the advantage of being in only one media market. Many districts cover multiple media markets, so the free TV would be dramatically reduced for candidates in such districts. The 20th district (Sweeney, Gillibrand and Sundwall) for example has 3 different media markets - Albany, Plattsburg, and NYC. [Correction -- 4 media markets -- I believe parts of Delaware and maybe Otsego are in the Binghamton market.]
Candidates would also receive campaign funds, but there's a complicated formula to determine how much, and I think if you read that carefully, it will become apparent that it's not a lot of money. If I read it right, in a primary election you get 32% of the "base amount" - the amount expended by the average winning candidate in nationwide over the last 3 election cycles. Sounds good until you realize that many incumbents run unopposed, and many others face no significant challenge. The average might well turn out to be about $100K, so the typical candidate might get only $32K for a primary. It's 48% for a general election, so that would work out to $48K. If the base amount was the average of winning challengers, rather than winning candidates overall, that would mean a lot more money, but that's not the proposal. It's also unclear what counts as "expended". Do McNulty's contributions to local Dem committees, other parties, and such, count? At a quick look I don't see a definition for that word in the bill.
It's not enough money. Winning challengers almost always spend $1 million or more. Limiting challengers to even $200K ensures that challengers will be unable to get their message out. In NY there's roughly 450,000 registered voters in a congressional district. It costs $100K to send one postcard to each registered voter. It takes money for candidates to get their message out.
Note that both proposals offer less money for primaries. Since most districts are gerrymandered, the most competitive races are often in primaries (see Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman). Giving less for primaries is designed to make those elections less competitive.
To get the benefits of the bill, candidates either have to be from a major party (i.e. Republican or Democrat), or that candidate must personally have gotten 25% of the vote in a previous election. Candidates who fit this must then get 1500 contributions of $5 each, presumable each of these from a different person. If you're not from a major party, you need to get 2250 such contributions.
Any candidate who faces a challenge from a candidate spending beyond the "Clean Money" amounts would receive an amount to match the amount spent by this other candidate. In other words, if someone spends a lot of money on a race, the "clean money" candidate gets matching funds from the government.
This bill plainly favors incumbent Dems and Republicans to the detriment of challengers and third-party candidates. What a surprise that McNulty would support it. Incumbents will all take the "clean money" route. Challengers who stick with the "clean money" approach will be so limited in spending that they won't be able to overcome the incumbent's name recognition advantage. When an incumbent faces a challenger who spends more than the CM amounts, the incumbent will get free matching funds with no effort. Challengers will also have to jump through a variety of hoops to qualify for the benefits, while incumbents will have a campaign staff and party machine at the ready to make sure it gets done easily. Most challengers will fail to qualify and get no money at all after wasting a lot of time trying to jump through the hoops. And of course, third-party and independent candidates have even more hoops to jump through.
I challenge anyone to explain why this bill would improve the democratic process in America.
Turning to the content of this bill, it does not include free postage for candidates. It gives free broadcast time to candidates: 30 minutes in primaries and 75 in general elections. That includes both TV and radio, and it works out to 60 ads of 30 seconds in primaries and 150 ads in a general election. Radio spots are usually 60 seconds, so it's only 30 spots and 75 spots. I spent $25K on TV and radio in 2004, and that bought a lot more than 150 spots. My district has the advantage of being in only one media market. Many districts cover multiple media markets, so the free TV would be dramatically reduced for candidates in such districts. The 20th district (Sweeney, Gillibrand and Sundwall) for example has 3 different media markets - Albany, Plattsburg, and NYC. [Correction -- 4 media markets -- I believe parts of Delaware and maybe Otsego are in the Binghamton market.]
Candidates would also receive campaign funds, but there's a complicated formula to determine how much, and I think if you read that carefully, it will become apparent that it's not a lot of money. If I read it right, in a primary election you get 32% of the "base amount" - the amount expended by the average winning candidate in nationwide over the last 3 election cycles. Sounds good until you realize that many incumbents run unopposed, and many others face no significant challenge. The average might well turn out to be about $100K, so the typical candidate might get only $32K for a primary. It's 48% for a general election, so that would work out to $48K. If the base amount was the average of winning challengers, rather than winning candidates overall, that would mean a lot more money, but that's not the proposal. It's also unclear what counts as "expended". Do McNulty's contributions to local Dem committees, other parties, and such, count? At a quick look I don't see a definition for that word in the bill.
It's not enough money. Winning challengers almost always spend $1 million or more. Limiting challengers to even $200K ensures that challengers will be unable to get their message out. In NY there's roughly 450,000 registered voters in a congressional district. It costs $100K to send one postcard to each registered voter. It takes money for candidates to get their message out.
Note that both proposals offer less money for primaries. Since most districts are gerrymandered, the most competitive races are often in primaries (see Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman). Giving less for primaries is designed to make those elections less competitive.
To get the benefits of the bill, candidates either have to be from a major party (i.e. Republican or Democrat), or that candidate must personally have gotten 25% of the vote in a previous election. Candidates who fit this must then get 1500 contributions of $5 each, presumable each of these from a different person. If you're not from a major party, you need to get 2250 such contributions.
Any candidate who faces a challenge from a candidate spending beyond the "Clean Money" amounts would receive an amount to match the amount spent by this other candidate. In other words, if someone spends a lot of money on a race, the "clean money" candidate gets matching funds from the government.
This bill plainly favors incumbent Dems and Republicans to the detriment of challengers and third-party candidates. What a surprise that McNulty would support it. Incumbents will all take the "clean money" route. Challengers who stick with the "clean money" approach will be so limited in spending that they won't be able to overcome the incumbent's name recognition advantage. When an incumbent faces a challenger who spends more than the CM amounts, the incumbent will get free matching funds with no effort. Challengers will also have to jump through a variety of hoops to qualify for the benefits, while incumbents will have a campaign staff and party machine at the ready to make sure it gets done easily. Most challengers will fail to qualify and get no money at all after wasting a lot of time trying to jump through the hoops. And of course, third-party and independent candidates have even more hoops to jump through.
I challenge anyone to explain why this bill would improve the democratic process in America.
posted by Albany Lawyer at 9:26 PM
2 Comments:
It's like asking criminals to craft criminal law.
I disagree with Ray. Criminals have a solid understanding of all sides of the criminal law, and are often victims themselves. If criminals were in charge of criminal law, they would still want to make sure they were protected from other criminals.
Incumbents, by contrast, have don't care one whit about the problems faced by challengers or the lack of real choice facing voters. It's amazing to see how John Sweeney in the 20th is reacting to a serious challenge. He's crying like a baby about everything she does, and he's paying top dollar to get her off the Independence line and to keep Libertarian Eric Sundwall of the ballot completely.
Post a Comment
<< Home