The top-ranking members of the Federal Election Commission yesterday proposed raising the spending limit in presidential primaries to as much as $250 million in an effort to resuscitate public financing of elections.
FEC Chairman Scott E. Thomas, a Democrat, and Michael E. Toner, the Republican vice chairman, also called for elimination of state spending limits and for making public money available to candidates much earlier in campaigns.
Michael E. Toner wants the presidential primary limit raised as high as $250 million.
(File Photo)
|
|
"The presidential public financing system is at an historic crossroads," the two wrote in a letter to members of Congress, which represented their views and not those of the full six-member commission. "If Congress does not act within the next two years, the system runs the serious risk of being totally irrelevant in the 2008 election and beyond."
In 2000, Republican George W. Bush was the first major-party nominee to reject public financing for the primaries -- originally enacted as a centerpiece of campaign law changes in 1974 and 1976 after the Watergate scandal. Bush rejected public financing again last year, as did Democrat John F. Kerry.
Both supporters and critics of federal campaign finance law agree that without changes, public financing for primaries would likely be rejected in 2008 as costs escalate and major candidates look for every edge to remain competitive by continuing to fundraise at historic levels. Many predict that full public funding of general elections will likely be rejected in the near future.
Last year, Bush raised $270 million and Kerry $245 million from private contributions. Accepting public subsidies would have required them to limit their primary spending to $45 million -- less than a fifth of what each of the campaigns spent.
Thomas and Toner suggested that Congress consider raising the spending limit in primaries to as much as $250 million, determining the amount by answering the question: "How high does the primary spending limit need to be for the top-tier candidates of both major parties to participate in the system?"
The election officials proposed raising the amount of the public subsidy to 50 percent of the spending limit. If the spending limit becomes $250 million, that means candidates could receive $125 million in public money. By contrast, the most a candidate could receive in public money last year was about $18 million.
Their proposal also would increase the amount of a contribution eligible for a 100 percent match from the federal government to $500, up from $250.
Among other changes suggested by Thomas and Toner:
• Raising the threshold to qualify for federal money. Currently, a candidate qualifies by raising $5,000 in each of 20 states in amounts of $250 or less for a total of $100,000. The proposal increases that to as much as $50,000 in each of 20 states, or a total of $1 million -- a move that could make it more difficult for less visible candidates to qualify.
• Making federal subsidies available to candidates earlier. Currently, the money is available on Jan. 1 of an election year. The proposal would move that date to July 1 of the year before. Most key primaries take place early in an election year, making it increasingly difficult for candidates to wait until Jan. 1.
• Making public money for the general election available to each party's nominee on the same day. Currently, the money is distributed to candidates on the day they accept their nomination during the party convention.