Taxpayer-financing in NJ teetering towards the cliff

Published on August 1, 2008
by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Taxpayer Financing

The future of taxpayer-financed political campaigns in New Jersey is teetering precariously after the legislature withdrew a proposal to expand the program this Spring and the Office of Legislative Services issued an opinion declaring that "matching funds" provisions are unconstitutional.

Most of the recent attention has rightfully been focused on the OLS's opinion, which very well could be a crippling blow to the taxpayer-financing scheme. But, while it is certainly important to carefully examine the details - like the OLS opinion - that could undermine the future of tax-financing in New Jersey, it is also important to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Taxpayer-financed political campaigns in the New Jersey are ill-advised regardless of the OLS opinion, a fact that even some supporters in the Garden state may be starting to realize.  

Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Middlesex, who received $600,000 in taxpayers' funds during the 2006 "clean elections" pilot program, complained that the latest version of the program considered by the legislature does not provide enough taxpayer largesse for candidates in competitive districts.

"I'd be less than honest if I said the $150,000 limit that's been set in the bill is adequate in any competitive district," Greenstein said.

Greenstein's opposition to the bill reinforces a key argument made by those who oppose taxpayer-financed campaigns as contrary to the First Amendment.  Taxpayer-financed political campaigns put government in charge of an aspect of our democracy in which they have no business - deciding when citizens have heard "enough" political speech and judging whether candidates have spoken too much or too little.

But Greenstein's concerns about spending limits should not be restricted to just candidates in competitive districts.  It is difficult to imagine how any non-competitive district could evolve into a competitive district if candidates are never given the funds with which to run an inspired campaign.  Instead, government-financing schemes cement the status quo by handcuffing the ability of challengers to run viable campaigns with the broad-base of support necessary to succeed in a difficult electoral environment. 

While such upstart campaigns are difficult even in the traditional system of private, voluntary campaign contributions, candidates like Barack Obama - who has shattered all fundraising records and rejected the federal government's taxpayer-financing program - show that even relatively unknown candidates can transform the political establishment, if they can strike a chord with voters.

But, if taken statewide, New Jersey's proposed system of taxpayer-financed campaigns may preclude upstart candidates with the power to transform politics from ever emerging.

It is not just potential future candidates who should be alarmed by the possibility of a statewide system of taxpayer-financed campaigns.  Citizens who believe they deserve a voice in the democratic process are muzzled as a result of taxpayer-financed campaign schemes.

Matching funds mechanisms, which are triggered when a citizens group spends money advocating for or against a candidate, punish citizens for daring to speak out about who is elected to represent them in Trenton.

Proponents of government-financed elections maintain that these so-called "rescue funds" are necessary to take power away from pernicious "special interests" groups.  But a closer look reveals that many of those "special interests" are, in fact, citizen groups who represent the varied interests of all Garden Staters.

In taxpayer-financed campaign systems, spending by citizen groups like the Sierra Club, National Rifle Association, or Emily's List, spurs government subsidies to "rescue" the "aggrieved" candidate.  Such a provision punishes citizen activism and makes plain that the proposal has little to do with empowering the citizenry.

In fact, bill-sponsor Louis Greenwald, D-Camden admitted that the proposed political welfare program relies on the admittedly false notion that New Jersey legislators can be easily influenced by their campaign supporters.  Political science confirms what Greenwald and his colleagues already know to be true - campaign contributions follow ideology and legislators vote according to the positions of their constituents, the views of their party, and their own beliefs.

Despite all these objections, the proposal to expand New Jersey's system of taxpayer-financed political campaigns may resurface in the fall as a "good government" cure for all that ails New Jersey. 

Before then, legislators will hopefully learn that government-financed elections are simply the latest scheme being peddled by advocates of campaign finance and speech regulations to suppress the First Amendment rights of their fellow citizens.

It is hard to see how such an undemocratic idea came to be packaged as "good government." If the legislation is passed, New Jersey residents will not see more competitive elections or a dramatic change in the way the state is governed.  Instead, citizens will see the state diverting scarce government resources into the pockets of politicians while the state continues to confront a fiscal maelstrom.

New Jersey citizens are best served by a campaign finance system that encourages robust debate from candidates, citizens, and independent groups.