Yesterday, nine reform groups sent letters to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform calling on the Committees "to investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)."

Today, the reform groups sent a similar letter, enclosed below, to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of two additional Committees, the Senate Rules Committee and the House Administration Committee, urging these Committees also to investigate and hold hearings on the FEC. These two committees have congressional jurisdiction over the nation's campaign finance laws and the FEC.

According to the letters to the Committees, the FEC is "one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the federal government” and a “broken agency that refuses to fulfill its basic statutory functions."  

The letters to the Committees further state that "The FEC Commissioners are carrying out what can only be described as 'agency nullification,' failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview."

The reform groups which sent the letters included Americans for Campaign Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The full letter follows below:

The Hon. Charles Schumer                                         
The Hon. Lamar Alexander                                        
Committee on Rules & Administration                     
U.S. Senate                                                                 
Washington, DC  20510                                 

The Hon. Dan Lungren
The Hon. Robert Brady
Committee on House Administration 
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC  20515

February 17, 2011

Dear Senators Schumer and Alexander and Representatives Lungren and Brady:

The under-signed organizations, dedicated to ensuring that federal candidates for public office abide by their legal obligations, respectfully urge your Committees to investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The FEC is, without question, one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the federal government.  As the Committees with jurisdiction over the FEC, you have a responsibility to examine the reasons why the FEC has ceased to comply with its statutory mandates.

The FEC is a broken agency that refuses to fulfill its basic statutory functions.  Examples of the FEC’s ineffectiveness are legion.  Time and again, the FEC has either dismissed complaints because the Republican and Democratic Commissioners have rejected efforts by the professional staff to enforce the law, deadlocked in a three-to-three vote, or promulgated rules contrary to the law, resulting in orders from the court to rewrite those rules.    

The FEC Commissioners are carrying out what can only be described as “agency nullification,” failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview.  There are myriad explanations as to why the FEC is unable to operate effectively, including defects in its structure, composition, and appointment process. Americans expect their elections to be conducted in a fair, honest and lawful manner, but the agency charged with ensuring the integrity of campaign financing is embarrassingly incapacitated.  Put simply, the Commission is excessively political and ideological, and the enforcement process is therefore broken.

Our nation's laws should not be undermined by the agency charged with enforcement.  It is up to Congress to write the laws and for the courts to determine the constitutionality of the laws.  FEC Commissioners may not simply refuse to enforce laws based on their disagreement with the laws, or their predictions of how a court might rule if a law were challenged.  Until Congress addresses these problems, candidates, donors, parties and outside spenders will continue to flout the laws with little fear of repercussion.  

The status quo is unacceptable and the American public reasonably expects agencies charged with enforcing the laws to actually do so.  Our organizations respectfully request that your Committees hold hearings to examine the root causes of the Commission’s dysfunction.  It is unacceptable that the only agency charged with enforcing campaign financing rules on our nation’s highest elected officials is largely AWOL.

Americans for Campaign Reform
Campaign Legal Center
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Common Cause
Democracy 21
League of Women Voters
Public Campaign
Public Citizen
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups in calling for Congressional hearings into the systemic failings of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and its failure to fulfill many of its basic statutory responsibilities to enforce existing campaign finance laws.  

 In a letter to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate oversight committees, the reform groups urged the committees to hold hearings on the agency and its frequent refusal to enforce the campaign finance laws passed by Congress.

The organizations signing the letter include Americans for Campaign Reform, Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG).

 The full letter follows below.

 February 16, 2011

 The Hon. Joseph Lieberman                                         The Hon. Darrell Issa

The Hon. Susan Collins                                     The Hon. Elijah Cummings

Committee on Homeland Security and               Committee on Oversight and Governmental Affairs                                                        Government Reform

U.S. Senate                                                                  U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC  20510                                               Washington, DC  20515

 Dear Senators Lieberman and Collins and Representatives Issa and Cummings:

 The under-signed organizations, dedicated to ensuring that federal candidates for public office abide by their legal obligations, respectfully urge your Committee to investigate and hold hearings on the systemic problems with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The FEC is, without question, one of the most dysfunctional agencies in the federal government.  The broad powers of each of the oversight committees make them well-suited to identify and bring real attention to the reasons why the FEC has ceased to comply with its statutory mandates.

The FEC is a broken agency that refuses to fulfill its basic statutory functions.  Examples of the FEC’s ineffectiveness are legion.  Time and again, the FEC has either dismissed complaints because the Republican and Democratic Commissioners have rejected efforts by the professional staff to enforce the law, deadlocked in a three-to-three vote, or promulgated rules contrary to the law, resulting in orders from the court to rewrite those rules.   

The FEC Commissioners are carrying out what can only be described as “agency nullification,” failing to provide for any effective enforcement of the statutes within their purview.  There are myriad explanations as to why the FEC is unable to operate effectively, including defects in its structure, composition, and appointment process. Americans expect their elections to be conducted in a fair, honest and lawful manner, but the agency charged with ensuring the integrity of campaign financing is embarrassingly incapacitated.  Put simply, the Commission is excessively political and ideological, and the enforcement process is therefore broken.

Our nation’s laws should not be undermined by the agency charged with enforcement.  It is up to Congress to write the laws and for the courts to determine the constitutionality of the laws.  FEC Commissioners may not simply refuse to enforce laws based on their disagreement with the laws, or their predictions of how a court might rule if a law were challenged.  Until Congress addresses these problems, candidates, donors, parties and outside spenders will continue to flout the laws with little fear of repercussion. 

The status quo is unacceptable and the American public reasonably expects agencies charged with enforcing the laws to actually do so.  Our organizations respectfully request that your Committee hold hearings to examine the root causes of the Commission’s dysfunction.  It is unacceptable that the only agency charged with enforcing campaign financing rules on our nation’s highest elected officials is largely AWOL. 

Americans for Campaign Reform

Campaign Legal Center

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Common Cause

Democracy 21

League of Women Voters

Public Campaign

Public Citizen

U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups to urge Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against any amendments to the FY 2011 spending bill (H.R. 1) that would restrict funding to implement the presidential public financing system or the presidential tax check-off.

Amendment 208, to cut off funding for the program, is expected to be offered Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK).   Additional amendments with the same goal may be introduced as well. 

The organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

 The full letter follow below. 

February 15, 2011

 Dear Representative,

Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose any amendment that may be offered to H.R. 1, the FY 2011 spending bill, to restrict funds from being used to implement the presidential tax check-off or the presidential public financing system.

The organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG. 

The presidential public financing system has served the nation and presidential candidates of both major parties well for most of its 36-year existence. The system has protected against government corruption and has given average citizens and small donors a vital role to play in our presidential elections. 

The presidential system today needs to be repaired, not repealed.  Representatives David Price (NC) and Chris Van Hollen (MD) have introduced legislation, H.R. 414, to fix the presidential system.

Killing the presidential financing system would turn the presidency over to influence-seeking big givers, bundlers, corporate spenders and other special interest spenders, at the great expense of the American people.

We urge you to vote against any amendment to H.R. 1, the FY 2011 spending bill, that would restrict funds from being used to implement the tax check-off or the presidential public financing system.

Americans for Campaign Reform        Democracy 21
Brennan Center for Justice                  League of Women Voters
Campaign Legal Center                       People For the American Way
Common Cause                                   Public Campaign
CREW                                                 Public Citizen
                                                             U.S. PIRG

On February 7th, 2011, the Campaign Legal Center joined with a coalition of reform groups to urge the Senate to vote against a bill to repeal the Presidential Public Financing System.  In a letter to every Member of the U.S. Senate, the 10 groups emphasized that the highly successful 35-year-old program should strengthened and updated rather than scuttled.

The groups stress that the program was created in the wake of the shocking fundraising scandals which emerged during the Watergate investigations and was utilized in the primaries by every major party nominee for President until George W. Bush opted out in 2000 and in every general election until the most recent general election when Barack Obama did not participate. 

The bill (S. 194) is companion legislation to H.R. 359 which passed the House on a largely party line vote of 239-160 that saw about a dozen Democrats join with the Republican majority.  

The organizations signing the group letter opposing S. 194 include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The full letter follow below:

February 7, 2011

Dear Senator,

Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose S.194, legislation introduced by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to repeal the presidential public financing system.

The presidential public financing system needs to be repaired, not repealed.

The organizations include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The presidential public financing system has served the nation and presidential candidates of both major parties well for most of its 36-year existence.

The system has provided presidential candidates with the funds needed to mount viable candidacies and wage competitive campaigns, has provided more meaningful choices to voters and has helped to ensure that more candidates have the opportunity to share their views with the electorate. For many candidates, public funding has been the source of sorely needed funds at crucial points in their presidential races.

The presidential system has protected against government corruption and has given average citizens and small donors a vital role to play in our presidential elections.

Senator McConnell’s legislation to kill the presidential financing system would turn the presidency over to influence-seeking big givers, bundlers and corporate and other campaign spenders, at the great expense of the American people.

The presidential system became outmoded in recent years when the costs of campaigns outstripped the public funds being provided to participating candidates and when the frontloading of primary elections got out of hand in the presidential nominating process.  Congress has made no adjustments in the presidential public financing system since it was first enacted in 1974.

The presidential financing system needs to be repaired and updated to again serve as a viable alternative system for presidential candidates to use in financing their campaigns.

Presidential candidates have long recognized the value and importance of the presidential public financing system. Since 1976, the system has been voluntarily used by most candidates from both major parties.

For example, every Republican presidential nominee from 1976 to 2008 used the presidential public financing system to finance their general election campaigns. This included President Gerald Ford, President Ronald Reagan (twice), President George H.W. Bush, Senator Bob Dole, President George W. Bush (twice) and Senator John McCain.

Similarly all Democratic presidential nominees during this same period, with the exception of

President Barack Obama, used the system to pay for their general election campaigns. This included President Jimmy Carter (twice), Vice President Walter Mondale, Governor Michael Dukakis, President Bill Clinton (twice), Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry.

President Ronald Reagan benefited from public financing as much as any candidate who has used the system, participating in the presidential public financing system for three of his presidential campaigns in 1976, 1980 and 1984.

The Republican and Democratic parties also have requested and received public funds from the system to pay for every presidential nominating convention from 1976 to 2008.

Recent editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and USA TODAY also have recognized the importance of the presidential financing system in calling for the system to be repaired and in opposing efforts to eliminate it.

President Obama recognized the importance of continuing the presidential financing system in calling for the system to be fixed and strongly opposing the effort in Congress to repeal the system.  In a statement issued on January 25, 2011, the Obama Administration said:

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 359 because it is critical that the Nation's Presidential election public financing system be fixed rather than dismantled.

……..

After a year in which the Citizens United decision rolled back a century of law to allow corporate interests to spend vast sums in the Nation's elections and to do so without disclosing the true interests behind them, this is not the time to further empower the special interests or to obstruct the work of reform.

Most importantly, the American people have recognized the importance of the presidential financing system as shown by a national poll taken at the end of the 2008 presidential campaign about the system. According to USA TODAY(October, 29, 2008):

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Tuesday [October 28, 2008] finds wide support for public financing of presidential campaigns, including a third who say the current voluntary system should be mandatory." According to the poll, "Four in 10 Americans say the nation should maintain the voluntary system, and 32% say candidates should be required to participate. Only 1 in 5 say the system should be eliminated.

The USA TODAY/Gallup poll showed that more than 70 percent of the public supported continuing the presidential public financing system and only 20 percent said the system should be eliminated.

The Citizens United decision last year demonstrated just how essential it is to repair the presidential public financing system. An updated system would provide presidential candidates with a viable alternative way to finance competitive campaigns, without relying on influence-seeking money. It would give average citizens and small donors a pivotal role to play in presidential elections, instead of presidential candidates being dependent on big donors, bundlers and corporate and other campaign spenders.

Legislation is expected to be re-introduced in the Senate shortly to modernize the presidential system. The key goal of this legislation is to greatly increase the role and importance of average citizens and small donors in presidential campaigns and to greatly decrease the role and importance of influence-seeking money.

It is essential to the health and integrity of our democracy to defeat Senator McConnell’s legislation to kill the presidential public financing system.

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote against S.194.

Americans for Campaign Reform                               League of Women Voters

Brennan Center for Justice                                         People For the American Way

Campaign Legal Center                                              Public Campaign

Common Cause                                                           Public Citizen

Democracy 21                                                             U.S PIRG

Today’s vote to repeal the Presidential Public Financing system is a setback for our democratic process, upping the opening bids for special interests seeking to elect a President willing to do their bidding.   The creation of the presidential public financing system stems directly from the scandals of the Nixon White House.  The investigation of the Watergate break-in led to the discovery of secret slush funds and literal bags of money solicited and disbursed by President Richard Nixon’s White House.  That is not an era to which we want to return yet in essence that is what a ‘yes’ vote today is inviting.  Today’s vote was a vote of the party of Nixon, not the party of Lincoln and certainly not the party of Teddy Roosevelt. 

  This seems a short-sighted move for a political party that has made an icon of President Ronald Reagan who benefitted immensely from the system and probably owes his election to the Presidency to the system.  The system was the only thing that allowed him to make a credible run in the 1976 primaries against President Gerald Ford and cement his status as a front runner for the 1980 nomination.  The 35-year-old system was utilized by every Republican and Democratic nominee for President in the primaries and nearly all of their rivals until George W. Bush opted out in 2000 and in every general election until Barack Obama did not participate in 2008.

 The Presidential Public Financing System should be strengthened and modernized as proposed in recently introduced Presidential Funding Act.  The bill from Representatives David Price (D-NC) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) modernizes system for presidential campaigns and enhances the influence of small donors in U.S. elections.  Their bill is a forward-looking bill while the repeal vote today chooses simply to ignore the past which would seem to doom us to repeat it.

 Fortunately the Senate and President Obama stand in the way of any actual repeal of the presidential public financing system.  But regrettably those who voted ‘yes’ today voted to increase the role of monied special interests and wealthy individuals in our political process and are standing in the school house door to block efforts to modernize the system to keep pace with the evolution of presidential elections.

 Already in 2011, politicians and their minions are retreating behind closed doors to begin the gerrymandering process -- handpicking their voters instead of the other way around.   Today, Representatives Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Jim Cooper (D-TN) are to be commended for introducing bills to drag the redistricting process out of the backrooms and into the light of day. 

 Both Rep. Shuler’s, “The John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act’’ (H.R. 453) and Rep. Cooper’s ‘‘Redistricting Transparency Act of 2011’’ (H.R. 419) deserve hearings and the serious consideration of their colleagues in the House.  For far too long, congressional leaders in both parties have scuttled any attempts to curb redistricting abuses.  

 These bills are modeled on legislation introduced previously by former Rep. Tanner but which languished in committee left to gather dust because congressional leaders refused to give up any potential partisan edge regardless of the consequences for voters.  That practice of mothballing redistricting reform bill must stop.  We call on Speaker Boehner and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) to hold hearings on the redistricting process, including consideration of these two bills.

 In too many states the decennial redistricting process constitutes a national embarrassment.  The partisan abuses are what one might expect from an ‘emerging democracy’ not the United States of America.  As voters in states with ballot initiatives have shown again and again, the redistricting status quo is unacceptable.  It is time for all Americans to have a meaningful voice in choosing their elected representatives.

Today the Campaign Legal Center strongly urged Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against H.R. 359 a bill to repeal the Presidential Public Financing System. In a separate letter the Legal Center joined with nine other reform groups in opposition to the legislation.

The letters emphasize the great successes of the 35-year-old system which was utilized by every Republican and Democratic nominee for President in the primaries until George W. Bush opted out in 2000 and in every general election until Barack Obama did not participate in 2008. Both letters stress that the program should be strengthened and modernized and criticize the fact that H.R. 359 is being brought to a vote without hearings or consideration of the legislation by the Committee of jurisdiction.

The organizations signing the group letter opposing H.R 359 include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The full letters follow below.

January 24, 2011

Dear Representative:

The Campaign Legal Center strongly urges you to vote against H.R. 359, legislation to repeal the presidential public financing system. The system has worked well over the years and fell into disrepair only recently because Congress failed to update it. While we recognize that the current system is broken, Congress should move to repair and modernize the system, not destroy it.

Claims that the presidential system has never worked well are simply incorrect. The system played a significant role in keeping major financial scandals connected with presidential campaigns at bay for some 30 years. But since 1976, much has changed in the way candidates run for President – television's role has grown, the amounts of money required to run have sky-rocketed, and the Internet didn't even exist. Yet efforts to update the system to reflect the changing times have been repeatedly blocked for more than a decade.

Just imagine if U.S. tax policy had essentially been frozen in time since 1976. It would be no surprise that the tax code would be labeled a failure. But that is precisely what has happened to the presidential public financing system as repeated efforts to update the system have been waylaid, with only a small increase in the amount of the tax check-off making it through.

President Barack Obama's decision in the 2008 election to totally opt out of the system – the first major party candidate to do so since its creation -- was disappointing, especially for the general election when the grant he would have received was probably sufficient to run a competitive campaign against his opponent, Senator John McCain, who participated in the system. However, because the amount of funds available in the system hadn't been increased in years and some of its outdated provisions, like state-by-state limits, remained on the books, it was hard to make a persuasive case that candidate Obama's decision was totally without merit.

It is ironic that much of the support for this repeal effort is coming from politicians who see themselves as acolytes or legacies of former President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan's presidential campaign is among the top recipients of money from the presidential public financing system. Indeed, his campaign manager, former Senator Paul Laxalt, a stalwart conservative Republican from Nevada, became an outspoken supporter of the system, noting that it was critical to President Reagan's eventual success through the Republican primaries.

Repealing the system would also have hugely adverse impact on the primary system. It would only further accelerate the move to a system where candidates who begin the primary system with their campaign funds well-stocked – either because they are the Washington establishments' favorite, or have well-established fundraising networks or have a sizeable personal fortune -- will have a staggering advantage as the primary season begins. Dark horse or outside candidates like President Reagan will face an uphill battle that will force them to overcome great odds. Such a challenge is not impossible, but the virtue from a public policy viewpoint of magnifying the importance of the "money primary" is highly questionable.

Our political system is best served when we have candidates run on the merits of their ideas and not the size of their war chest.

The Supreme Court's decision last year in Citizens United vs. FEC no doubt changed the campaign landscape and the presidential public financing system needs to be revised to reflect that new reality. With corporations now freed to spend directly unlimited amounts from their treasury funds to impact U.S. elections, candidates face an increasing threat of becoming bit players in their own campaigns. The incentives to pursue large donors to amass the growing amounts needed to run for office are now even greater. Also greater are the incentives to stockpile campaign money, not only to compete with the opposing candidate but also to fight back against potential attacks from outside groups. All of these dynamics are pushing candidates into the arms of a small elite of wealthy contributors or those who run political action committees. They are also magnifying the role of bundlers who can put together large chunks of money for candidates. If these bundlers pick the right horse, they, like the soft money donors before them, end up well-positioned in the next Administration, sometimes rewarded with job, always rewarded with access.

An appropriate response to the Citizens United decision is to promote ways to incentivize candidates to pursue small donor contributions and to give small donors incentives to contribute. A modernized presidential system should have elements such as matching system that ensures that candidates will repeatedly test their viability in the political marketplace. Such a system might also include tax credits for small contributions, which would give Americans an incentive to put "skin in the game", become more engaged in the political process, and provide enhanced access to the publicly owned airwaves. Once the major candidates are selected, the test of success should not be whether the Republican or Democratic candidate has the most money. Rather, the selection of who should become the leader of our nation should be made on the merits of the ideas, the persuasiveness of their arguments and efficacy of their campaigns. Such a voluntary system does nothing to limit speech or to squelch debate. It promotes greater engagement and ensures that the American people hear from the candidates from which they are to choose.

Repealing the current presidential system as H.R. 359 proposes is both wrong-headed and short-sighted. Yes, the system needs to be modernized, but H.R. 359 will empower special-interest money, and set back important efforts to ensure that the election for the most powerful leader in the world is determined by the will of the American people and not the size of a candidates' war chest.

The Campaign Legal Center urges you to vote against H.R. 359.

Sincerely,

Meredith McGehee

Policy Director

Campaign Legal Center

* * *

January 24, 2011

Dear Representative,

Our groups strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 359, a bill to repeal the presidential public financing system. This legislation would eliminate a system which has given average citizens and small donors a critically important role to play in funding our presidential campaigns.

The presidential public financing system has served the country and presidential candidates of both parties well for most of its 35-year existence. The system only began to decline when campaign costs outstripped the public financing provided to participating candidates and frontloading changes in the presidential nominating process occurred.

The presidential public financing system needs to be repaired, not repealed, in order to continue serving the interests of the American people and protecting against corruption.

The groups opposing H.R 359 include Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

On January 5, 2011 newly elected Speaker John Boehner promised the American people "a fair, open process" in Congress. We cannot see how this commitment matches up with the plan to bring H.R. 359 to the floor for a vote in the first month of a two-year Congress with no hearings on the legislation and no consideration of the legislation by the Committee of jurisdiction.

Since 1976, the presidential public financing system has been voluntarily used by most candidates from both parties.

For example, every Republican presidential nominee from 1976 to 2008 used the presidential public financing system to finance their general election campaigns. This included President Gerald Ford, President Ronald Reagan (twice), President George H.W. Bush, Senator Bob Dole, President George W. Bush (twice) and Senator John McCain.

Similarly all Democratic presidential nominees during this same period, with the exception of President Barack Obama, used the system to pay for their general election campaigns. This included President Jimmy Carter (twice), Vice President Walter Mondale, Governor Michael Dukakis, President Bill Clinton (twice), Vice President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry.

The Republican and Democratic parties have also requested and received public funds to pay for their national presidential nominating conventions for every convention from 1976 to 2008.

The Citizens United decision which unleashed corporate expenditures in our national elections demonstrates just how essential it is to repair the presidential public financing system. A modernized system would provide presidential candidates with a viable alternative way to finance their campaigns focused on average citizens and small donors, as opposed to being dependent on big donors, bundlers, lobbyists, and corporate and other outside spenders.

Reps. David Price (D-N.C.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced legislation in the last Congress (H.R. 6061), and will be re-introducing it again, that would modernize the presidential public financing system and make it an attractive and viable option again. The key goal of this legislation is to increase the role and importance of small donors in presidential campaigns and decrease the role and importance of influence-seeking money.

Public financing of presidential elections has been valuable because it has provided candidates with the monies they need to mount viable candidacies and wage competitive campaigns. In this way, public funding has not only served to promote competition in elections and provide more meaningful choices to voters, but it has also helped to ensure that more presidential candidates have the opportunity to share their views with the electorate. For many candidates, public funding was the source of sorely needed funds at crucial points in a presidential race.

President Ronald Reagan, for example, probably benefited from public financing as much as any candidate who has used the system. President Reagan participated in the presidential public financing system in all three of his presidential campaigns in 1976, 1980 and 1984.

Due to his broad base of supporters throughout the nation, President Reagan was able to capitalize on his small-donor fundraising capacity to accrue substantial sums of public money. In fact, even in 1984, when as President he was seeking reelection without significant opposition from within his own party, President Reagan raised about 60 percent of the funds for his campaign from small donors and, as a result, received $9.7 million in primary matching funds. Most notably, this was the maximum amount of public money a primary candidate could receive in accordance with the law at the time. To date, President Reagan stands as the only candidate to ever reach the public funding primary campaign maximum.

It is essential to the health and integrity of our democracy to defeat the effort this week to kill the presidential public financing system and to move towards modernizing the system.

House members should support efforts to increase the role and importance of average citizens and small donors in our presidential elections. Representatives should not take action to turn the elections over to big donors, bundlers, lobbyists, corporate spenders and other outside spenders.

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote against H.R 359.

Americans for Campaign Reform

Brennan Center for Justice

Campaign Legal Center

Common Cause

Democracy 21

League of Women Voters

People For the American Way

Public Campaign

Public Citizen

U.S PIRG