ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 TAG: 9603130026
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
BEFORE THE April 15 filing deadline, Virginians will sweat over many lines on their federal income-tax forms - but not the one dealing with the presidential-election campaign fund: ``Do you want $3 to go to this fund?''
Because the answer will not affect the filer's tax bill, it's no sweat. Many Virginians will check ``yes'' - signifying support of public financing for the nation's numero uno political campaign.
Would they also support public financing for statewide and legislative candidates? Our hunch is yes, if the financing is tied to reasonable limits on campaign expenditures. Virginia may not be as fiscally conservative as it once was - but it still recognizes spending gone out of control when it sees it, and knows that someone needs to apply a brake.
Credit state Sen. Madison Marye, D-Shawsville, for trying.
Marye reintroduced a measure in this year's General Assembly, which he first championed nearly a decade ago, to create a Virginia Public Campaign Finance Fund similar to the presidential-election campaign fund. Under his proposal, Virginians could make voluntary donations to the fund through a tax-return checkoff, and the state would contribute a matching amount. Candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and the General Assembly could draw limited amounts from this fund, if they agreed to a campaign-spending limit.
Because the 1996 legislature was clearly in no mood to deal with campaign-finance reform, Marye asked that his measure be carried over until the 1997 session. OK, but while it sits on the table for a year, it requires no complex number-crunching to understand why it's a promising idea.
In the 1995 legislative elections, candidates raised and spent $21 million - almost double the previous record of $11 million set in 1991, the last time all assembly seats were at stake. The average 1995 expenditure for candidates in contested Senate races was about $158,000; for House candidates, $83,000.
Spending by many candidates was well above those averages. House Majority Leader Richard Cranwell of Vinton spent more than $309,000 (up from $193,000 he spent in 1993), for example, and his Republican challenger spent more than $253,000.
Lawmakers are quick to blame campaign-spending inflation on the rising costs of TV spots, direct mailing, media consultants, etc. In part, too, it's a reflection of an increasingly competitive two-party system in Virginia, which is a welcome trend.
But legislators also use rising campaign costs as an excuse to justify their refusal to impose limits on campaign contributions. The result is that running for office is increasingly a matter of pawning legislative votes and influence to a wealthy few with special interests.
Public financing of campaigns and voluntary spending limits such as Marye has proposed are in the public's interest. Without them, the day may come when none but the rich - or those willing to sell their souls to the rich - can consider running for public office, and those elected to it won't give average citizens even $3 worth of consideration.
LENGTH: Medium: 58 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996by CNB