Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, January 7, 1992 TAG: 9201080014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
CAMPAIGN FUND
THE APPALLINGLY low voter-turnout rate. The term-limitations movement. The pox-on-all-their-houses sentiments that show up regularly in letters to the editor.There's no shortage of evidence that citizens are disgusted, fed up to the teeth, with America's political system. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure a big part of the reason why:
In the face of Keating Five-type scoundrels and savings-&-loan-type scandals, many have concluded that the system has fallen into the clutches of powerful special interests, that it has broken faith with the public at large.
This perception is understandable. Had Washington faced up to the S&L debacle when it should have, as far back as 1984, the thrift crisis would have cost perhaps $10 billion to $20 billion to take care of. Instead, taxpayers will be shelling out nearly $1 trillion over the next half century, leaving a huge and grossly unfair burden on the next generation. And this happened not just because the Reagan administration was committed to keeping hands off financial buccaneers. It also happened because the thrift industry and its political action committees had bought time by buying Congress.
For the Congress and state office-holders, campaign-finance reform is a reasonable starting point for altering the public's lowly perception of government. Voluntary public financing of political campaigns, in exchange for stringent limits on campaign spending and contributions from political action committees, would help reduce the incentive politicians now have to sell out to the highest bidders - the PACs and special interests that currently bankroll political campaigns.
Such reforms also would help cut back the huge edge incumbents almost always have over challengers. This would encourage more people to run for public office, and could strengthen two-party competitiveness - a good thing for democracy.
Meanwhile, there's a small way ordinary citizens can send a message to Washington - that they want the system to be more responsive to them. In the next few weeks, as we fill out federal income-tax returns, all the citizenry ought to make a simple mark that says we intend to stay in the game and retain control of presidential politics.
The mark would be on the $1 checkoff box on federal tax forms - to provide taxpayer funding for presidential elections.
Last week, the Federal Elections Commission reported that the taxpayers' fund is running low. There should be enough money in it to cover this year's presidential election, but the FEC says it could face a shortfall of $100 million by 1996. Mostly, that's because fewer people are marking the checkoff box. It's seen as more evidence that citizens are disgusted with the system and want nothing to do with it.
"Americans have become increasingly alienated and cynical about politics," says Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "If you ask people whether - in addition to the large salaries they pay for their representatives and their large staffs - they want to also pay for their multimillion-dollar campaigns, the answer is `no.'" Many taxpayers, doubtless, would say "Darn tootin' right!"
But wait a minute. Perhaps many have forgotten, or never understood, that this checkoff - a campaign-finance reform that grew out of the Watergate era - is there for the express purpose of reducing presidential candidates' reliance on large contributions from PACs or other private sources with special interests.
Currently, only 6 percent of American citizens make direct contributions to presidential campaigns. If ordinary citizens aren't willing to put up even $1 in public funds for the campaigns - well, then, in a contest that pits the interests of ordinary citizens against special interests, whose side would you reckon the president is likely to take?
Remember: The checkoff does not reduce the individual taxpayer's refund or increase his tax liability by even a penny. It merely authorizes the federal government to put a dollar in the kitty for campaigns. It is also a good way for the public to show it's not willing to leave the political system to the manipulations of big-time spenders. Broader participation in the presidential program, which has generally proved an excellent reform, could add impetus to efforts to extend public financing to congressional campaigns.
If citizens are serious about wanting better representation from their elected leaders, X marks a good spot to start.