FEINGOLD, SHAYS, MEEHAN INTRODUCE
PRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FINANCING FIX
Bipartisan Legislation Would Protect Integrity of Electoral Process
and Reduce Role of Big Contributors in Presidential Elections
July 27, 2006
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and U.S.
Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) have
introduced legislation to repair and strengthen the presidential public
financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 addresses weaknesses
in the system, which was put in place following the Watergate scandal.
The presidential public funding system is intended to protect the integrity
of the electoral process by allowing presidential candidates to run
competitive campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors.
“The presidential financing system was put in place to restore
fairness and voter confidence in our electoral system,” Feingold
said. “This important Watergate-era reform simply needs updating.”
“Several factors -- including the front-loading of the primary
process, the emergence of extremely wealthy candidates and the unpopularity
of the tax check-off -- have combined to render the system of presidential
public financing in serious need of repair. Our legislation will make
the system attractive enough to once again be accepted by all the leading
candidates for the entire election cycle by significantly increasing
the spending limit for the primaries and the amount of public money
available to participating candidates,” Shays said.
“Much has changed since this system was implemented in the wake
of the Watergate corruption scandal, and we're now facing the first
election since Watergate where all major candidates will likely decide
not to take public funds. Just as campaigns have evolved in the last
thirty years, it's time for the public financing system to catch up
to the realities of modern campaigns,” Meehan said.
From 1976 to 2004, the presidential public funding system produced
competitive elections in which Republicans were elected five times and
Democrats three times, while challengers managed to be victorious in
three of the six elections in which the incumbent was a candidate. But
the front-loading of decisive primaries, and the emergence of candidates
able to raise money far in excess of the primary election spending limits,
have exposed the weaknesses of the current system. Both major party
candidates accepted public financing for the 2004 general election,
but candidates from both parties opted out of the primary election system
and that system will likely become even less attractive to candidates
in the future if it is not revised and updated.
Read a fact sheet
on the legislation.
|
