Public financing's cleansing power

RALEIGH -- Long before last month's decision by Barack Obama to forgo participation in public financing for the general election campaign, there has been a growing consensus that our current system of presidential public financing is in need of repair. The system doesn't provide enough money for serious candidates to be competitive or grant any protection if a participating candidate is outspent. And it fails to meaningfully reduce the influence of PAC money and large contributions or leverage a candidate's grass-roots support.

In short, it's a clunky, outmoded system that needs a serious overhaul. But in this billion-dollar presidential year -- where money and special interests are gaining increasing control -- we cannot afford to let this program sink into irrelevance. Instead, we need fundamental reform that dilutes the ability of money to buy influence, inspires a small donor grass-roots activity and allows voters to truly own the election process.

The presidential public financing program needs to better meet the demands of modern campaigns by doling out more money earlier on. We can do this by making primary election money available earlier and more connected to small donor support, so that grass-roots-driven campaigns are rewarded with a 4:1 match on every $50 check. This would make the program far more democratic and dilute the power of a $4,000 check.

Participation in the program should require candidates to refuse all money from PACs and severely limit large contributions. Under the current system candidates can raise hundreds of millions of dollars from big donors and special-interest groups in the primary and still receive public financing in the general, as long as they limit their spending in the fall. A better system would keep this money out and make candidates rely solely on small contributions and the public throughout the entire election process.

The program should provide a matching component to protect candidates from being outspent by nonparticipating candidates and independent groups. Obama would likely be in the program right now if he knew John McCain would receive a dollar match for everything raised over $85 million.

The good news is we don't have to look too far to find a tried and tested model for reform that's fundamentally better than the outdated presidential public financing system. Called Voter-Owned Elections, this public financing system is designed to inspire grass-roots activity and keep out special-interest money -- not just limit spending.

To participate, candidates must first collect large numbers of small-dollar contributions (generally $10-$200) from voters and refuse all PAC money and large checks. Once they prove their community support, these candidates receive a public campaign grant as long as they refuse all future fundraising and agree to strict spending limits. If they're outspent, they can receive matching money up to 200 percent.

l l l

IN NORTH CAROLINA, WE HAVE VOTER-OWNED ELECTIONS for our statewide judges, and starting this year some of our top executive offices like commissioner of insurance. So far these programs have been a success, with high and diverse participation and dramatic reductions in expectation-laden special-interest contributions.

Gone are the days when lawyers financed judges and insurance companies bankrolled insurance commissioners. Here are the days of grass-roots campaigning and a clean, publicly supported campaign financing stream.

U.S. Rep. David Price, D-N.C., has introduced legislation (The Presidential Public Financing Act of 2007) that would dramatically improve the presidential public financing system and make it closer to the Voter-Owned Elections model. It increases the amount of money, better leverages grass-roots support and provides a matching component to protect participating candidates from being outspent -- all changes that would not only save the program from irrelevance but also make the 2012 elections far freer from the tainting influence of special interests and large contributions.

Whether you see Obama's decision to forgo public financing as a self-interested reneging on a promise or an understandable decision considering the circumstances -- or both -- we should all agree that after 30 years, a major presidential public financing overhaul is needed. By reforming the system in a way that emulates successful programs here in North Carolina and elsewhere, presidential public financing can become both more attractive to serious candidates and bring us closer to fulfilling the promise of self-representation our democracy holds.

(Chase Foster is coordinator for N.C. Voters for Clean Elections, a coalition representing campaign finance reform groups including Democracy N.C. and the Center for Voter Education.)