Questions About Campaign Finance Reform

Given the recent, um, “turmoil” there’s a renewed effort to pass any number of reform measures this session, including enacting the first campaign contribution limits for candidates under Illinois campaign finance law. This comes as no surprise, federal candidates are already restricted to contributions only from individuals (no corporations) and only up to a certain limit (now $2,400 per person per primary/general) and many other states have restrictions on fundraising.

Recent corruption investigations have shown that there is a clear connection between the need to raise money and certain types of political corruption. Candidates and people who raise money for them have at times abused the system or taken shortcuts in an effort to get ahead. Few if any would argue for the need to reform the system so that there’s less incentive to cheat the law and better safeguards to ensure that the cheaters will be caught.

However one thing remains true, effective campaigns cost money. Let’s say that for any given race in any given election year there is a certain amount of money that any candidate will need to run a reasonable campaign and for that candidate to distribute his or her message effectively. Let’s call that figure (X). Some candidates can not or did not raise (X) funds and were not able to compete effectively based on the merits of the message they were campaigning on. For example, in 1998 when Glenn Poshard ran for Governor against George Ryan and self imposed fundraising limits he wasn’t able to raise enough money to compete effectively and get his message out. He was not able to get to (X) with his fundraising. Conversely some candidates have been very successful fundraisers and raised sufficiently more than was needed to get his/her message out. For example in 2006 Rod Blagojevich spent way more than was necessary just to get his message out.

My point is that there exists an amount of money that a candidate needs to raise to be an effective candidate and to compete on the merits of his or her message. Consider (X) to be the point at which the law of diminishing returns sets in.

I happen to believe that the cost of (X) changes from cycle to cycle and that the cost of (X) is rising. (if anyone disagrees with this feel free to offer rebuttal in comments) The cost of (X) in 2008 was higher than in 2006, which was higher than in 2004, and so forth. So:

1998(X) < 2000(X) < 2002(X) < 2004(X) < 2006(X) < 2008(X)

So to recap, here’s what we know:

1) Campaigns cost money
2) A certain amount of money (X) is required to run a reasonable, effective campaign
3) The cost of (X) is rising
4) In recent corruption investigations candidates and the people who raise money for them have been found breaking the law and cheating the system so that candidates can better fund their campaigns.

The suggested remedy is to place limits on the sources and amounts of money candidates can raise. Two questions:

1) If new rules make it harder to raise campaign funds in an environment of rising costs will these new rules cause candidates to spend more time or less time raising money versus the current system?
2) If the current system provides enough pressure on fundraising so that some candidates feel compelled to break the law and cheat would changing the rules to make it harder for candidates to raise money while costs continue to rise without relief make it more likely or less likely that candidates would break the law and cheat versus the current system?