Senator Rudman's Testimony
Former Senator Warren Rudman, Co-Chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, testified to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in support of the Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285) on June 20, 2007. Included on this page are his testimony as well as his responses to Senator Durbin's questions.
Testimony:
View full screen | Download PDF | Download TXT
Read this doc on Scribd: Rudman Testimony 6-20-07
Testimony of Senator Warren B. Rudman Co-chair, Americans for Campaign Reform Senate Committee on Rules and Administration June 20, 2007 Madame Chairwoman, members of the committee, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak to you this morning. I am here to state unequivocally that I support public funding of elections and specifically support the Fair Elections Now Act that has been introduced by Senators Durbin and Specter. Many of you know that I have not always held this view and all of you should know that I have reached this conclusion reluctantly. Times have changed and so have I. That’s why I am honored to serve as a Co-Chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, the just six dollar movement, along with former Senators Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, and Al Simpson. As I look back on my twelve years in Washington, I hesitate to guess how many hours I devoted to attending fundraisers and calling strangers for campaign contributions. Today, as all of you know first hand, the problem has gotten much, much worse. In 2004, nearly four billion dollars was spent on the congressional and presidential campaigns, up from 2.2 billion dollars in 1996. The average cost to win a Senate seat in 2004 was well over seven million dollars. That means that you and your colleagues had to raise an average of four thousand six hundred dollars apiece every weekday for the six years you were in office.1 Every hour that each of you were forced to spend dialing for dollars, calling people you don’t even know, was an hour that you were not serving your country and your constituents. I have seen how the influx of cash on our system has distorted our nation's agenda, undermined our democratic values, driven voters away from the polls and limited electoral competition. There are two insurmountable problems inherent in our current system, one rooted in reality and the other in perception. The reality is that private financing loosens a cascade of special interest money. The perception is that many Americans, or most, lack confidence in Congress or believe our system is corrupt. While this perception is unfair to the many good people in Congress, our democracy suffers nonetheless. Unfortunately, I believe that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to face those issues that are particularly vexing and challenging if they don’t have the confidence of the American people. Miles away from the Beltway, Arizona and Maine have implemented public funding for state races, and polls indicate growing support across the country. In Maine, eighty percent of those elected to the legislature in 2006 rejected private money, freeing them from the endless pursuit of contributions. Five top Arizona officials were elected without taking a dime of special interest money. Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona, said after her election, "I could spend my time talking with voters, not big contributors." Once in office, she said, "Lobbyists are not swarming around me." With public financing, the power rests with voters, not special interests. When the cost of financing a campaign is not an intimidating obstacle, more of our most able leaders will likely consider public service. Once elected, they will be free to spend their time and energy attending to the nation's business instead of wasting their time on nonstop and demeaning fundraising. And when Americans have greater confidence in our democracy, more will participate and more will vote. A healthy part of the American Dream has always been the notion that anyone can hold public office. Increasingly, candidates' qualifications are being measured by the size of their wallets, not the strength of their ideas. Public funding would once again allow Americans from every walk of life, and income level, to contemplate public service. To respect the First Amendment, public funding must of course be voluntary. Yet it still works. The key is to make sufficient public money available so that an unknown candidate who qualifies will have the necessary funds to introduce themselves and their points of view to all the voters in their state. Election history shows that candidates who opt out of public funding, and spend significantly more, will not have a meaningful advantage as long as their opponents are reasonably funded. I believe that the mechanisms included in the Fair Elections Now Act are an ideal way to ensure that those who accept public funds will have sufficient money to run competitive races. As I became more familiar with public funding, I was truly surprised to learn how inexpensive it will be. For just six dollars a citizen per year, we can publicly fund all elections for Congress and the White House. That's a real bargain when you consider that pork barrel projects alone cost each and every American well more than one hundred dollars in a typical year. Financing federal elections with private money has led to apathy and alienation, if not corruption and fraud. It will take a bold move by you and your colleagues to restore confidence in our political system and restore faith in our democracy. I urge you to support the Fair Elections Now Act. Source: 1 Center for Responsive Politics (Based on data released by the FEC on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.)
Testimony of Senator Warren B. Rudman Co-chair, Americans for Campaign Reform Senate Committee on Rules and Administration June 20, 2007 Madame Chairwoman, members of the committee, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak to you this morning. I am here to state unequivocally that I support public funding of elections and specifically support the Fair Elections Now Act that has been introduced by Senators Durbin and Specter. Many of you know that I have not always held this view and all of you should know that I have reached this conclusion reluctantly. Times have changed and so have I. That’s why I am honored to serve as a Co-Chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, the just six dollar movement, along with former Senators Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, and Al Simpson. As I look back on my twelve years in Washington, I hesitate to guess how many hours I devoted to attending fundraisers and calling strangers for campaign contributions. Today, as all of you know first hand, the problem has gotten much, much worse. In 2004, nearly four billion dollars was spent on the congressional and presidential campaigns, up from 2.2 billion dollars in 1996. The average cost to win a Senate seat in 2004 was well over seven million dollars. That means that you and your colleagues had to raise an average of four thousand six hundred dollars apiece every weekday for the six years you were in office.1 Every hour that each of you were forced to spend dialing for dollars, calling people you don’t even know, was an hour that you were not serving your country and your constituents. I have seen how the influx of cash on our system has distorted our nation's agenda, undermined our democratic values, driven voters away from the polls and limited electoral competition. There are two insurmountable problems inherent in our current system, one rooted in reality and the other in perception. The reality is that private financing loosens a cascade of special interest money. The perception is that many Americans, or most, lack confidence in Congress or believe our system is corrupt. While this perception is unfair to the many good people in Congress, our democracy suffers nonetheless. Unfortunately, I believe that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to face those issues that are particularly vexing and challenging if they don’t have the confidence of the American people. Miles away from the Beltway, Arizona and Maine have implemented public funding for state races, and polls indicate growing support across the country. In Maine, eighty percent of those elected to the legislature in 2006 rejected private money, freeing them from the endless pursuit of contributions. Five top Arizona officials were elected without taking a dime of special interest money. Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona, said after her election, "I could spend my time talking with voters, not big contributors." Once in office, she said, "Lobbyists are not swarming around me." With public financing, the power rests with voters, not special interests. When the cost of financing a campaign is not an intimidating obstacle, more of our most able leaders will likely consider public service. Once elected, they will be free to spend their time and energy attending to the nation's business instead of wasting their time on nonstop and demeaning fundraising. And when Americans have greater confidence in our democracy, more will participate and more will vote. A healthy part of the American Dream has always been the notion that anyone can hold public office. Increasingly, candidates' qualifications are being measured by the size of their wallets, not the strength of their ideas. Public funding would once again allow Americans from every walk of life, and income level, to contemplate public service. To respect the First Amendment, public funding must of course be voluntary. Yet it still works. The key is to make sufficient public money available so that an unknown candidate who qualifies will have the necessary funds to introduce themselves and their points of view to all the voters in their state. Election history shows that candidates who opt out of public funding, and spend significantly more, will not have a meaningful advantage as long as their opponents are reasonably funded. I believe that the mechanisms included in the Fair Elections Now Act are an ideal way to ensure that those who accept public funds will have sufficient money to run competitive races. As I became more familiar with public funding, I was truly surprised to learn how inexpensive it will be. For just six dollars a citizen per year, we can publicly fund all elections for Congress and the White House. That's a real bargain when you consider that pork barrel projects alone cost each and every American well more than one hundred dollars in a typical year. Financing federal elections with private money has led to apathy and alienation, if not corruption and fraud. It will take a bold move by you and your colleagues to restore confidence in our political system and restore faith in our democracy. I urge you to support the Fair Elections Now Act. Source: 1 Center for Responsive Politics (Based on data released by the FEC on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.)
Response:
View full screen | Download PDF | Download Text
Read this doc on Scribd: Rudman Response 6-27-07
Senate Committee on Rules & Administration June 20, 2007 Hearing on S.1285 Submission for the Record 6-27-07 Questions of Senator Richard Durbin for Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chair, Americans for Campaign Reform Q: Do you believe participating candidates will be able to effectively compete with well-funded independent expenditure campaigns under FENA? Members of the committee have raised legitimate concerns about the potential influence of independent expenditures on election outcomes under FENA and, in particular, the possibility that participating candidates will be unable to effectively compete with independent expenditure campaigns. The proliferation of independent political groups organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and the recent Supreme Court ruling1 undermining independent advertising restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 heighten this sense of concern. Although understandable, such concerns are unfounded. FENA provides a level of funding for participating candidates that is “sufficient for voters in each state to learn about the candidates to cast an informed vote, taking into consideration the historic amount of spending of winning candidates, media costs, primary election dates, and any other information the Commission determines is appropriate”2. Independent empirical analysis confirms the existence of a “sufficiency” threshold beyond which campaign spending by either candidates or independent groups exhibits a diminished marginal votegetting utility, regardless of the spending level of opposing candidates or groups.3 In 1 2 Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. June 25, 2007 S.1285 Fair Elections Now Act (introduced 5/3/2007); Note: funding for S.1285 will be generated via spectrum usage fees paid by broadcasters who use the public airwaves for profit 3 See: (1) Abramowitz, A. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82(June), 385-403. ; (2) Gerber, A. (2004). Does campaign spending work. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 541-574 ; (3) Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and evidence. American Political Science Review, 94, 595-609. ; (4) Gerber, A. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on Senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92, 401-411. ; (5) Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, addition, case study analysis of Senate campaigns confirms the sufficiency test, as exemplified by the loss in 2006 of three prominent Senate candidates spending double or more (avg. $17 million) the amount of their adequately-funded opponents. So long as participating candidates receive sufficient funds to effectively communicate with voters, as directed under FENA, the existence of well-funded independent expenditure campaigns will not have a determining effect on election outcomes. Americans for Campaign Reform is developing a white paper to support this conclusion. Q: How concerned are you that “fringe” candidates with limited public support will receive funds under FENA to finance their campaigns? FENA employs a high qualifying threshold for participating candidates in order to ensure that only viable candidates with a significant demonstrated level of public support receive the benefit of FENA funds. FENA instructs the Fair Elections Review Commission (“Commission”) to establish an appropriate number and value of qualifying contributions which balances “the importance of voter choice and fiscal responsibility, taking into consideration the number of primary and general election participating candidates, the electoral performance of those candidates, program cost, and any other information the Commission determines is appropriate.” In the event the Commission deems the qualifying requirements in a given state or states to be either too low or overly stringent in the preceding election(s) (on the basis of candidate participation levels, vote outcomes, etc.) it maintains the authority to amend such qualifying levels and present them for Congressional approval. Q: Is there a viable precedent for the independent Commission proposed in FENA? In order to ensure that qualifying thresholds and FENA funding allotments are established impartially and in accordance with the competitiveness objectives identified in the bill, FENA provides for the establishment of an independent Fair Elections Review Commission with policymaking authority. Specifically, the nonpartisan Commission is tasked with determining the number of qualifying contributions required and the amount of funds provided for each state in each cycle, which recommendations are then presented to Congress for a straightforward up-or-down vote. The Commission is modeled after the Pentagon’s Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), the recommendations of which not subject to amendment in Congress given the highly politicized and intractable nature of the issue. The model is deemed legitimate insofar as it preserves Congressional authority to establish the Commission and its directives, and to approve or disapprove of its recommendations, while simultaneously preventing the 34(May), 334-362. conflict of interest associated with members of Congress establishing qualifying and spending thresholds for their own elections. Q: Do you believe the fact that only 10% of taxpayers check off support for the current Presidential public funding system indicates there will be little public support for FENA? As Senator McConnell indicated in his testimony before this Committee, public support for the existing presidential public financing (PPF) system has waned since the 1980s, as measured by the rate of tax check-off participation on federal income tax returns. The current system is failing in two primary respects, one practical, the other by design; both shortcomings are meaningfully addressed by the full campaign funding model proposed under FENA. First, the PPF-imposed spending limits on participating candidates have not kept pace with rising campaign costs and are wholly inadequate to run a viable presidential campaign today. Whereas every qualified presidential candidate from 1976 until 2000 opted in to the voluntary spending limits and public funds associated with PPF, that trend has reversed in recent years as the cost of campaigns has risen far above the rate of inflation. The decision by every major presidential candidate to opt-out in 2008 in order to ensure they have adequate resources to communicate their message to the voters is a clear indication that the system is no longer viable. This failure of PPF underscores the necessity of providing adequate funding levels to participating candidates in order to ensure that candidates participate and voters have sufficient information to make their choice. Second, the existing system provides only limited public matching funds during the presidential primaries, in contrast with full funding of qualified senatorial campaigns under FENA or high public matching fund alternatives. (Note: Although FENA resembles previous public financing proposals, funding for qualified campaigns will not be provided out of general taxpayer funds but via spectrum usage fees paid by for-profit broadcasters for use of the public airwaves.) Specifically, PPF provides public funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis for only the first $250 of every contribution, with the resulting ratio of public to private funds at less than 1:8 when maximum private contributions ($2,300) are received. By leaving in tact the large private donations that are the subject of special interest concerns through its failure to publicly fund at an appropriate level, PPF amounts to a public subsidy of the existing private financing system. What’s more, the fundamental objectives of public financing—including mitigating special interest influence and increasing public accountability and electoral competition—are not adequately obtained through the reliance on so limited a public match in tandem with large private contributions. FENA-style full public financing, or matching systems which substantially increase the ratio of public to private funds, by contrast, are designed to meet these core objectives. Recent polling indicates that when the public is presented with a choice between private financing of elections and voluntary public financing (or public-style funding from non-taxpayer sources, such as FENA), more than 70 percent prefer public financing.
Senate Committee on Rules & Administration June 20, 2007 Hearing on S.1285 Submission for the Record 6-27-07 Questions of Senator Richard Durbin for Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chair, Americans for Campaign Reform Q: Do you believe participating candidates will be able to effectively compete with well-funded independent expenditure campaigns under FENA? Members of the committee have raised legitimate concerns about the potential influence of independent expenditures on election outcomes under FENA and, in particular, the possibility that participating candidates will be unable to effectively compete with independent expenditure campaigns. The proliferation of independent political groups organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and the recent Supreme Court ruling1 undermining independent advertising restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 heighten this sense of concern. Although understandable, such concerns are unfounded. FENA provides a level of funding for participating candidates that is “sufficient for voters in each state to learn about the candidates to cast an informed vote, taking into consideration the historic amount of spending of winning candidates, media costs, primary election dates, and any other information the Commission determines is appropriate”2. Independent empirical analysis confirms the existence of a “sufficiency” threshold beyond which campaign spending by either candidates or independent groups exhibits a diminished marginal votegetting utility, regardless of the spending level of opposing candidates or groups.3 In 1 2 Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. June 25, 2007 S.1285 Fair Elections Now Act (introduced 5/3/2007); Note: funding for S.1285 will be generated via spectrum usage fees paid by broadcasters who use the public airwaves for profit 3 See: (1) Abramowitz, A. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82(June), 385-403. ; (2) Gerber, A. (2004). Does campaign spending work. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 541-574 ; (3) Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and evidence. American Political Science Review, 94, 595-609. ; (4) Gerber, A. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on Senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92, 401-411. ; (5) Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, addition, case study analysis of Senate campaigns confirms the sufficiency test, as exemplified by the loss in 2006 of three prominent Senate candidates spending double or more (avg. $17 million) the amount of their adequately-funded opponents. So long as participating candidates receive sufficient funds to effectively communicate with voters, as directed under FENA, the existence of well-funded independent expenditure campaigns will not have a determining effect on election outcomes. Americans for Campaign Reform is developing a white paper to support this conclusion. Q: How concerned are you that “fringe” candidates with limited public support will receive funds under FENA to finance their campaigns? FENA employs a high qualifying threshold for participating candidates in order to ensure that only viable candidates with a significant demonstrated level of public support receive the benefit of FENA funds. FENA instructs the Fair Elections Review Commission (“Commission”) to establish an appropriate number and value of qualifying contributions which balances “the importance of voter choice and fiscal responsibility, taking into consideration the number of primary and general election participating candidates, the electoral performance of those candidates, program cost, and any other information the Commission determines is appropriate.” In the event the Commission deems the qualifying requirements in a given state or states to be either too low or overly stringent in the preceding election(s) (on the basis of candidate participation levels, vote outcomes, etc.) it maintains the authority to amend such qualifying levels and present them for Congressional approval. Q: Is there a viable precedent for the independent Commission proposed in FENA? In order to ensure that qualifying thresholds and FENA funding allotments are established impartially and in accordance with the competitiveness objectives identified in the bill, FENA provides for the establishment of an independent Fair Elections Review Commission with policymaking authority. Specifically, the nonpartisan Commission is tasked with determining the number of qualifying contributions required and the amount of funds provided for each state in each cycle, which recommendations are then presented to Congress for a straightforward up-or-down vote. The Commission is modeled after the Pentagon’s Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), the recommendations of which not subject to amendment in Congress given the highly politicized and intractable nature of the issue. The model is deemed legitimate insofar as it preserves Congressional authority to establish the Commission and its directives, and to approve or disapprove of its recommendations, while simultaneously preventing the 34(May), 334-362. conflict of interest associated with members of Congress establishing qualifying and spending thresholds for their own elections. Q: Do you believe the fact that only 10% of taxpayers check off support for the current Presidential public funding system indicates there will be little public support for FENA? As Senator McConnell indicated in his testimony before this Committee, public support for the existing presidential public financing (PPF) system has waned since the 1980s, as measured by the rate of tax check-off participation on federal income tax returns. The current system is failing in two primary respects, one practical, the other by design; both shortcomings are meaningfully addressed by the full campaign funding model proposed under FENA. First, the PPF-imposed spending limits on participating candidates have not kept pace with rising campaign costs and are wholly inadequate to run a viable presidential campaign today. Whereas every qualified presidential candidate from 1976 until 2000 opted in to the voluntary spending limits and public funds associated with PPF, that trend has reversed in recent years as the cost of campaigns has risen far above the rate of inflation. The decision by every major presidential candidate to opt-out in 2008 in order to ensure they have adequate resources to communicate their message to the voters is a clear indication that the system is no longer viable. This failure of PPF underscores the necessity of providing adequate funding levels to participating candidates in order to ensure that candidates participate and voters have sufficient information to make their choice. Second, the existing system provides only limited public matching funds during the presidential primaries, in contrast with full funding of qualified senatorial campaigns under FENA or high public matching fund alternatives. (Note: Although FENA resembles previous public financing proposals, funding for qualified campaigns will not be provided out of general taxpayer funds but via spectrum usage fees paid by for-profit broadcasters for use of the public airwaves.) Specifically, PPF provides public funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis for only the first $250 of every contribution, with the resulting ratio of public to private funds at less than 1:8 when maximum private contributions ($2,300) are received. By leaving in tact the large private donations that are the subject of special interest concerns through its failure to publicly fund at an appropriate level, PPF amounts to a public subsidy of the existing private financing system. What’s more, the fundamental objectives of public financing—including mitigating special interest influence and increasing public accountability and electoral competition—are not adequately obtained through the reliance on so limited a public match in tandem with large private contributions. FENA-style full public financing, or matching systems which substantially increase the ratio of public to private funds, by contrast, are designed to meet these core objectives. Recent polling indicates that when the public is presented with a choice between private financing of elections and voluntary public financing (or public-style funding from non-taxpayer sources, such as FENA), more than 70 percent prefer public financing.
