Obviously, the prime reason to finance campaigns with public funds (tax dollars) would be to stop the buying of our elected officials by special interest groups. These special interest groups, insurance companies, health care industry, oil and gas industry etc., do not always have the best interest of the citizens of our country as a priority. They buy the Congress and Senate with massive contributions that amount to billions of dollars to make sure that their decisions are favorable to their group. This happens at a terrible cost to average folks.

The billions of dollars contributed to Congress and the cost of 13,000 to 14,000 lobbyists working continuously to influence our elected leaders is in reality a terrible waste. Folks in manufacturing would recognize this type of waste immediately because it added nothing to the quality of the product or helped reduce the cost to the consumer.

A good analogy for this system would be to start warehousing scrap associated with producing tires instead of tires and trying to sell it as a product. The only people interested in buying scrap are the scrap dealers. The special interest groups are basically the scrap dealers in our system. The money they provide to Congress adds nothing of value to the products produced (laws/bills), increases the cost to the consumer (citizens) and adds value only for the scrap dealers.

Our system basically says to the extremely bright, eager, and honest folks who would do an excellent job in public service, “forget it if you do not have money. You must be willing to beg for campaign contributions from special interest groups if you expect to win. You must also be willing to keep your promises to these groups regardless of what you told the voters if you expect to be re-elected.”

I do not think that it is a mystery that we end up without our brightest and best in Congress considering these circumstances. Do you?

How about these excerpts from an essay by Clyde Winters explaining how we pay for elections now except it is done under the table, benefits only the special interests and cost billions when it should cost millions. This is a discussion on public financing of elections between two guys while butchering a deer.

“‘Oh, right,’ said Sid. ‘On the radio programs I listen to (and you guys ought to) that’s called welfare for politicians and socialized elections. Our taxes are already too high for the services that are provided. Why the devil should I pay even more taxes to support these shyster politicians and fund their propaganda?’

“‘Because,’ said Jess, slow and deliberate, ‘we are already paying for it, but we’re paying way too much. The subsidies, special tax breaks, pork, and extravagant contracts that just happen to find their way into bills and regulations, and that just happen to favor the big campaign contributors, cost taxpayers roughly a thousand times as much as it would cost to directly finance the elections. We are all, already paying indirectly for this corrupt campaign finance charade right now, but we are paying billions of dollars, rather than the millions we would be paying if we paid for it directly through public financing.

“Vested interests give to campaigns and political parties to get control and favors. If they just wanted to “contribute” to good government, they could do that directly, by funding government programs or general revenues (and thus reduce our tax burden) rather than indirectly, by funding political parties and candidates (who then cut their taxes, but not ours). Do you think they want to help us pay for the cost of government? Get real. They want control. And they expect us to shoulder the burden.

“You’re going to pay for this propaganda and electioneering one way or another. Paying for it indirectly, through the consequences of corporate lobbyists writing the bills, tax codes, and regulations that affect them (as we are all paying now) costs us way more than paying for it directly. And if we paid directly, through public financing, the politicians would have to satisfy US — not the kingpin dealers where they now go to get their fix.”

When I find an article that either explains a subject better or the language is plainer, I like to use it. The conversation over the deer above explains why we need to publicly finance elections better than I can. The facts below from Clean Elections only re-enforce the need for public financing.

“The cost of running campaigns for elected office is skyrocketing. The average winning U.S. Senate race in 2006 cost nearly $10 million and the average winning House race that year cost $1.3 million. The decisions about who runs and who wins in our democracy increasingly come down to big money and special interests, not regular voters.

“With the corrupting role that big money has on politics brought to light in recent Congressional scandals — and the regular passage of pork-barrel spending projects — the need for reform is increasingly clear. Special interests and wealthy donors have an inordinate amount of influence on politicians through campaign contributions, which undermines voters’ trust in how Congress works and can lead to manipulation of public policy — often against the interests of the public.

“Clean Elections reforms this system by allowing candidates to run for office using public funds rather than relying on wealthy private donors. The result is elected officials who are beholden only to the voters and not powerful special interests, making the government better able to deal with the serious issues our society is facing in areas such as education, health care, the economy and more.

“The concept of full public financing of campaigns, also called ‘Clean Elections’ or ‘Fair Elections,’ is simple: Candidates who demonstrate a wide base of public support by collecting a threshold number of small donations, and who agree to forego further private fundraising and to abide by spending limits, qualify and receive public funding to run a competitive campaign.

“By severing the direct link between campaign donations and political favors, Clean Elections would ensure that politicians are accountable to the public interest rather than special interests.

“Clean Elections would level the playing field, giving voters the opportunity to make a decision based on the merits of the candidates rather than their fundraising abilities.

“Clean Elections would allow candidates, and officeholders seeking reelection, to spend less time dialing-for-dollars and more time focusing on solving the pressing challenges confronting our nation.

“Full public financing systems have a proven track record: Seven states and two cities have successfully implemented Clean Elections systems for some or all of their offices.”

Vote every incumbent out who does not stand for clean elections and banning of lobbyist. Next week: “Earmarks.”



James Rippy is a former manager of what is now Continental Tire North America in Mt. Vernon and has authored a book titled “Executivitis.” E-mail him at

rippyj@charter.net.