MAKE CAMPAIGN FINANCING MORE INCLUSIVE.

• Author: McGehee, Meredith
• Position: Point-Counterpoint

Like it or not, money--or the lack of it--plays a big role in our elections. It takes money to start a campaign, to run a campaign and to win a campaign. Speculating on what is "the right" amount of money is a rabbit hole we're not going to go down. Who's to say, for example, too much is being spent in Arizona but Vermont has it about right? Each state is different, each race brings new challenges and each campaign is unique. Our concerns are about how the ever-increasing, high cost of campaigns--at every level of government--relates to who the money is coming from, the amount of time spent fundraising and who is excluded from running.

So, where does the money come from? Analyses of 2016 election spending show that a decreasing number of wealthy individuals make up an increasing percentage of the money raised by candidates. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, "contributions by donors that gave $1 million or more to candidates in the election cycle represented a quarter of all money raised by 2016 office-seekers." This is consistent with what we're seeing on the federal level.

Candidate fundraising is an important means of engaging with the electorate and getting citizens involved in the democratic process. But when candidates prioritize fundraising from contributors who can make large contributions--unlimited amounts, in some states--there is less time for connecting with constituents and raising small-dollar contributions.

Another important factor is that it takes time to fundraise. It's a chore that pulls officeholders away from the jobs they were elected to do. At the federal level, the amount of time officeholders spend dialing for dollars has been well-documented--both parties have told freshmen lawmakers they should be spending roughly 30 hours per week on call time. There is less evidence about the time state candidates spend fundraising, but with only 10 full-time state legislatures, most state lawmakers are already stretched between their duties as an officeholder and other work commitments.

Indeed, the role of the parties in all of this should not be overlooked. In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010, the parties have been hollowed out. Rather than serving their traditional function of providing a venue for like-minded citizens to come together to support candidates of their choice, the parties have become yet another avenue for wealthy individuals and special...