Public funding of elections would be a change for the better

Change. Change. Change. Change. Change.

How? How? How? How? How?

I'm glad you asked.

First, do some harm -- and I mean real harm. Break the system we now have where every two years most members of Congress have to raise millions of dollars to win re-election, where senators must do the same every six years and presidential candidates every four. Institute the public funding of elections, an idea whose time has surely come. Theodore Roosevelt suggested it in 1907.

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates, afflicted with a compulsion to chirp "change" every third word, support such a concept. Yet it never has been a billboard campaign issue. Instead, they emphasize banishing lobbyists from this or that part of their realm -- Barack Obama will accept no contributions from them and John Edwards would ban them from his White House -- but lobbyists are not the problem. The problem is the need for them.

The average winner of a congressional race in 2006 spent $1.3 million. The average Senate winner spent $9.6 million. Where do you think much of this money came from? Lobbyists. What do you think members of Congress must start doing the day after their election? Raise money. This is why Congress is often in session only three days a week and why holidays have been stretched into virtual recesses. Fundraising, fundraising, fundraising.

The only way to eliminate the disproportionate influence of lobbyists is to break Congress' lust for campaign funds. Otherwise, we will forever be getting remedies that sound good in a presidential debate but don't matter that much. Edwards won't take money from lobbyists but he will from negligence lawyers; Obama is similarly chaste, but his hand is out to consultants and others who, while not registered as lobbyists, nevertheless represent special interests. I don't blame the candidates. Even special interests have a right to be heard. But not a greater right than you or I. If elections were publicly funded, then members of Congress would not be reliant on special interests for campaign funds. There would be a downside. Certain groups would lose some clout -- including, unfortunately, organizations with progressive agendas. In general, though, the disproportionate role of money would be curbed.

There is another way to do this -- compulsory voting. This eliminates the huge costs of get-out-the-vote efforts and, especially, of targeting particular interest groups. In Australia, such a system produces turnouts of 90 percent or so. But I can't see America adopting such a system.

Of all the candidates who talk about cleaning up Washington, Obama has the best track record. "We have to break the stranglehold that the lobbyists and special interests have on our democracy," he has said. But his plan -- "a plan to make the White House the people's house" -- will not break the reliance of Congress on campaign funds. Maybe, once in office, Obama intends to offer the sort of leadership Teddy Roosevelt ventured a century ago when he called on Congress to adopt public financing. Obama embodies that promise.

Hillary Clinton, too, favors public financing and mentioned it in a recent presidential debate. But whatever her intentions, her message is muddled by an obvious association with squalid presidential pardons and Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers during her husband's time in office. This may be an unfair way to judge her, but there is really no alternative. She has been part of the system for far too long to realistically pose as its reformer. Still, Clinton has a point. Change will not come from rhetoric and it will not come by banning lobbyists. It will come by blowing up a system that is broken. Congress' only efficiency is as a vacuum for money. Somebody, please, pull the plug.

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group