Campaign Finance Reform

Political campaigns cost money, and candidates for office must raise the funds necessary to carry their message to the voters. In our democracy, it is perceived as a good thing when candidates and voters interact and current issues are discussed. There is, however, concern about the cost of campaign activities, about the origin of the campaign money and whether candidates become obliged to donors in some manner for facilitating their successful campaigns.

As a result of his service in the U.S. House of Representatives, during which time he has gone before the voters every two years, Rep. Petri understands the costs necessary in running a successful campaign. He is cognizant, as well, of the not always positive perceptions that develop around campaign fundraising. Whether it is real or imagined, the persistent belief that large political donors gain undue influence with policy makers is a corrosive perception which can only harm our political system. For this reason, among others, Rep. Petri has been a long time supporter of campaign finance reforms which seek to limit the influence of large money donors. Most notable of these reforms is the 2002 adoption of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) which had as its central feature a ban on unregulated soft money contributions.

Many may have expected passage of this 2002 reform to be the final answer in campaign finance legislation, but unregulated big-money has continued to find its way into campaigns for federal office. Some of this money has come in the form of very large contributions. Looking at very recent history, the successful presidential campaign of Barack Obama provides a good illustration of the current state of campaign finance. The Obama campaign attracted a significantly large pool of donors, raising large sums from donors at all contribution levels. A study recently released by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute showed that the percentage of money received by small donors (those giving less than $200) did not change appreciably from presidential campaigns of the recent past, that the percentage of small donors among the total donor base remained consistent with past elections, and that large donors continued to play an important role in support of the Obama candidacy.

None of this is to suggest than anyone did anything wrong, but only that more work needs to be done in order to enhance the importance of small donors to political campaigns at all levels. The more that candidates can rely on small donors to fund their campaign activities, the less influence large donors can have on the policies supported by candidates once they gain elective office. Campaign finance can be a difficult issue because of free speech concerns and because many see "reforms" as attacks on their funding base by partisan opponents. It need not be this way and bipartisanship in the name of increasing citizen involvement and removing doubt from the electorate are goals worthy of continued support.

In past years, Rep. Petri has authored his own proposals to encourage small donor participation and improve the level of discourse on the campaign trail. He intends to continue his advocacy of these initiatives during the 111th Congress:

H.R. 726 - The "Citizen Involvement in Campaigns Act" (CIVIC Act) seeks to revive and expand the tax credit for political contributions, which was in place from 1972 until the comprehensive tax reform of 1986. Under this proposal, a taxpayer who makes a political contribution to a candidate for federal office or a national political party could claim a tax credit of up to $200 per year or a tax deduction up to $600 (both figures doubled for joint returns). With this bill, Rep. Petri seeks to encourage broader participation in the funding of political campaigns, and in so doing serve as a counterweight to the influence of big-money donors and special interests. It stands to reason that if politicians were less financially dependent on such donors, the influence of those donors would also be diminished.

The "Smear Poll Disclosure Act" is meant to curb the insidious practice of spreading malicious information about an opponent in the guise of conducting a routine opinion poll. Known by many names, these smear polls are used to create a negative opinion of the opponent without public debate or accountability. (Example - "would you be more or less likely to vote for Candidate X if you learned that he beat his wife?") Rep. Petri's bill would force those who conduct a federal election poll with more than 1,200 respondents to disclose their funding source, questions, and results to the Federal Election Commission.