10
Dec
2002
The Federal Election Commission's vote on November 25 to allow campaign committees to pay a salary to candidates for Congress and the presidency might on the surface seem like a terrible idea. Why should fat-cat politicians be allowed to skim cash off the tops of their campaign war chests? Don't they have enough perks as it is?
But the idea has merit - a lot of merit, actually - even though it doesn't go far enough.
This rule change, approved by a 5-1 vote, lets candidates draw a salary equal to what they earned in the year before they began running, or the salary of the office they're seeking, whichever is less. Earned income during the campaign reduces the maximum amount of the salary. What this means is that candidates for Congress could be paying themselves an annual salary of up to $150,000 out of their campaign funds, while presidential candidates could draw $400,000. (Presidential candidates who use public funds to run will not be eligible to draw a salary.)
This could result in some dramatic changes in who decides to run - both the types and number of people who seek political offices. Until now, mounting a serious campaign for Congress was an exclusive game, limited to incumbents, the rich, and people with very understanding bosses. ("You want nine months paid leave to run? No problem!") Most of us simply can't afford to run for public office.
That's no longer true with this new rule, and it's largely a clean, simple solution. Unlike public financing, there's no taxpayer money involved, and there's no need to come up with confusing criteria to decide who's eligible. If you can raise enough money to pay yourself a salary, you go right ahead; you're limited only by people's willingness to give your campaign money.
One downside, of course, is that perpetual candidates (say, Pat Quinn in Illinois) can now officially claim the occupation of "professional politician," in the same way that some people (see Anna Nicole Smith) seem to be professional celebrities, contributing nothing. ("What do you do for a living?" "I run for Congress!")
But there's a tremendous upside. It's conceivable that ordinary folks could now take unpaid leaves from their jobs and devote themselves full-time to their campaigns. Factory workers, teachers, small-business owners, and bus drivers could join all the lawyers and corporate honchos who presently comprise our political class. And if a few of them win, they could provide a tremendous jolt to the political establishment.
That's the dream, anyway, and ostensibly the purpose of the rule change. "Candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office," Federal Election Commissioner Michael Toner told the Associated Press.
The problem is that the rule really only applies to well-heeled candidates. Third-party and lesser-known politicians patch together their campaigns with five-dollar bills, and every penny is so valuable that they wouldn't dream of siphoning off money for a salary. The rich, in this case, might not get richer, but they stay rich, while the underdogs aren't in any position to help themselves.
The rule, to work as a leveler of the playing field, requires that all politicians have a fundraising apparatus that can generate enough cash to support a well-run campaign and a candidate's salary. Of course, that's just silly.
So is there some equalizer, aside from full public financing of campaigns? I'm not sure. Perhaps there could be a pool of public salary money available to people whose fundraising is above a certain base level (say, $10,000) but is clearly not enough to allow for a candidate's salary.
That's just one idea. As political reform goes, the Federal Election Commission change is modest, but a good start. The key is to make sure it's the beginning of opening up the electoral process, not the end.
This rule change, approved by a 5-1 vote, lets candidates draw a salary equal to what they earned in the year before they began running, or the salary of the office they're seeking, whichever is less. Earned income during the campaign reduces the maximum amount of the salary. What this means is that candidates for Congress could be paying themselves an annual salary of up to $150,000 out of their campaign funds, while presidential candidates could draw $400,000. (Presidential candidates who use public funds to run will not be eligible to draw a salary.)
This could result in some dramatic changes in who decides to run - both the types and number of people who seek political offices. Until now, mounting a serious campaign for Congress was an exclusive game, limited to incumbents, the rich, and people with very understanding bosses. ("You want nine months paid leave to run? No problem!") Most of us simply can't afford to run for public office.
That's no longer true with this new rule, and it's largely a clean, simple solution. Unlike public financing, there's no taxpayer money involved, and there's no need to come up with confusing criteria to decide who's eligible. If you can raise enough money to pay yourself a salary, you go right ahead; you're limited only by people's willingness to give your campaign money.
One downside, of course, is that perpetual candidates (say, Pat Quinn in Illinois) can now officially claim the occupation of "professional politician," in the same way that some people (see Anna Nicole Smith) seem to be professional celebrities, contributing nothing. ("What do you do for a living?" "I run for Congress!")
But there's a tremendous upside. It's conceivable that ordinary folks could now take unpaid leaves from their jobs and devote themselves full-time to their campaigns. Factory workers, teachers, small-business owners, and bus drivers could join all the lawyers and corporate honchos who presently comprise our political class. And if a few of them win, they could provide a tremendous jolt to the political establishment.
That's the dream, anyway, and ostensibly the purpose of the rule change. "Candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office," Federal Election Commissioner Michael Toner told the Associated Press.
The problem is that the rule really only applies to well-heeled candidates. Third-party and lesser-known politicians patch together their campaigns with five-dollar bills, and every penny is so valuable that they wouldn't dream of siphoning off money for a salary. The rich, in this case, might not get richer, but they stay rich, while the underdogs aren't in any position to help themselves.
The rule, to work as a leveler of the playing field, requires that all politicians have a fundraising apparatus that can generate enough cash to support a well-run campaign and a candidate's salary. Of course, that's just silly.
So is there some equalizer, aside from full public financing of campaigns? I'm not sure. Perhaps there could be a pool of public salary money available to people whose fundraising is above a certain base level (say, $10,000) but is clearly not enough to allow for a candidate's salary.
That's just one idea. As political reform goes, the Federal Election Commission change is modest, but a good start. The key is to make sure it's the beginning of opening up the electoral process, not the end.
