The United States just witnessed the most expensive elections in its history. The $2 billion spent on the presidential race was dwarfed by expenditures on state and local races. Hundreds of millions were spent by outside groups that are not required to disclose their donors. The Center for Responsive politics estimates the final tab at $6 billion.
The danger of this trend is clear. Since only those with access to massive war chests can run, public office is limited to millionaires or those who can raise money from lobbyists and bundlers. So long as our elected officials depend upon on a tiny segment of the population that provides campaign funds, government will act on behalf of the special interests, not the public interest.
This is not an unsolvable problem. Existing reforms have worked to combat the problem of big money in politics in states and communities across the country, from Arizona to Connecticut to Maine.
In 2008, I managed a state legislative race in Connecticut, a state that had one of the most progressive and robust campaign finance laws in the country. Two years later, I managed a state Senate campaign in New York, which does not publicly finance campaigns. The difference between the two systems was profound.
In Connecticut, the goal of what's known as the "Citizens' Election Program" was simple: remove the influence of big money donors and special interests. Candidates who opted into the system were prohibited from accepting contributions from lobbyists or corporations.
Those candidates could only accept contributions of $100 or less. Candidates qualified for public funds by demonstrating grassroots support with sufficient small-dollar donations from within their district. They received a grant from the state to fund their campaign and were barred from any other fundraising. One of the greatest aspects of the program was matching funds. If your opponent chose not to opt in to the system and outspent you, the state gave you more money to make sure you were adequately funded to get our message out to voters. (Regrettably, this provision was struck down by the courts after the 2008 election.)
As a result of this law, my candidate — a 25-year-old running against a 68-year-old incumbent who many thought unbeatable — was able make a compelling case to voters and win a narrow victory. Today he is a respected leader in the Connecticut Legislature and just won his third term. Without the Citizen's Election Program, he would never have been able to publicize his message and compete in his first campaign.
The state Senate campaign in New York was different. We spent well over a million dollars. Much of that money came from corporate interests and lobbyists, often in denominations of $5,000 or $10,000. More than half our funding came from other state senators or from the party, whose money came predominantly from corporations and lobbyists. Despite the massive sums we spent, our opponent spent far more and won.
There has been a constant stream of stories exposing corrupt New York politicians. Almost all have involved improprieties arising from campaign finance. Pay-to-play, disclosure and misuse of funds scandals abound. However, the far more pervasive and insidious side effect of New York's lack of campaign finance laws is evidenced by the many candidates who adapt their positions on critical issues to match whichever group of lobbyists has the ability to raise the greatest sums of money.
Thankfully, my candidates have always represented the pinnacle of political integrity. However, in the current finance system, even the most upstanding candidates are forced to spend as many as eight hours per day on the phone, calling donors and asking business leaders and lobbyists to donate to the campaign.
In contrast, candidates participating in publicly financed elections spend their days knocking on doors, going to neighborhood events and talking to voters.
As we reflect on the 2012 elections, it is important to ask, "Is this what campaigns in America should look like?"
In almost every corner of the country, campaigns are focused on appealing to bundlers and wealthy interests. If the country would implement a robust public financing system for all local, state, and federal campaigns, it will empower candidates to appeal to voters and the public interest instead of to lobbyists and corporations.
Michael Pernick is a student at the New York University School of Law. His last political campaign was Democrat Mike Kaplowitz's unsuccessful race in the Hudson Valley against state Sen. Greg Ball, R-Patterson, in 2010.