Campaign Finance Reform
Fixing Campaign Finance & Increasing Voter Participation
By Sam Yoon
City government affects our lives on a daily basis. It is the city, and not state or federal government, that runs our schools, keeps our streets clean and safe, and shapes the culture of our neighborhoods. And city government depends on the electoral process to keep it working.
But for elections to work, they must be competitive. Unfortunately, in Boston – the birthplace of American democracy – competitive elections are all too rare. For too many ordinary citizens in Boston who are willing to serve, running for office isn’t even an option. Why?
It’s the money. For most people, raising the money to mount a credible campaign is just too difficult. Unless you are independently wealthy, the bar is set too high for many worthy challengers.
At the same time, Boston’s campaign finance system protects those who are already in office, especially the mayor. In Boston, the mayor has the power to amass unlimited amounts of campaign funds from employees and individuals who do business with the city. These huge amounts of money scare off potential candidates. The result is elections with no challengers, where there is no competition, where people do not participate.
Perhaps this is why, in a city with nearly 336,000 registered voters, just 46,249 (13.5%) voted in the last city election. Perhaps this is why Mayor Menino hasn’t faced a properly-funded candidate since he entered office nearly sixteen years ago.
Campaign finance reform is not as hard as you would think. Fifteen cities across the country – from New York City to Little Rock, Arkansas – have fundamentally changed their campaign finance laws.
Here’s how we can do it:
- Limit the amount of campaign funds an elected official can carry over from one campaign to the next. Any money left over could be donated to charity. This is done in other jurisdictions, and it works. Limiting the amount politicians can carry over will prevent incumbents from amassing huge war chests that discourage challengers.
- Limit the amount that individuals who do business with the city can contribute to $200. We must end the pay-to-play culture in Boston. City contracts should go to the best bidder. Period. Whether you are a developer looking for help from the BRA or a caterer hired for a public event, the playing field should be level.
- Explore public financing of campaigns. In these difficult economic times, there will likely be little appetite for setting aside taxpayer dollars to fund elections for politicians. However, the ultimate solution to an even playing field for democracy rests on public financing.
- Limit the amount that the mayor’s employees can give to their boss to $25. About 4,000 city employees can be directly hired and fired by the Mayor. According to a Boston Globe story from 2005, when asked about a $500 contribution to her boss the Mayor, one city employee said, “I figured that is what you are supposed to give.”
This is reform that we can achieve. Let’s see this as an historic opportunity to fundamentally change the culture of city government, change the way we finance campaigns, and make Boston’s democracy stronger for our future.
Our current campaign finance system is broken. What are your ideas of limiting the role that big money plays in our electoral and governmental process? How do you think we can level the playing field between incumbents and challengers and ensure that all our elections are competitive and about new ideas?
Sam wants to know. Share your thoughts.
