The new Representatives from PA, elected with slim majorities, have a problem, but there’s a solution.
Problem:
We all know what’s happening with congress and fundraising. It’s become a frequent news story: no sooner are members of the 110th Congress in office than they are required to raise millions for their reelection. It’s just a question of math: raise as much as possible or you’ll lose, because your opponent will be doing the same thing. I wrote about Jason Altmire’s experience (D, PA-4) earlier.
This Tuesday, The Philadelphia Inquirer had a story on the problem Patrick Murphy (D, PA-8)faces:
There’s no such thing as a governing period now? It’s one campaign into the next. It’s really two full-time jobs – being a congressman and being a candidate.
Jason Altmire and Patrick Murphy are just two vulnerable freshmen who need to raise money to stay in office, from day one. To win the next election, they are already in full campaign mode, 24/7. There’s a tension between having time for policy making and raising enough money.
Even though he won in 2006, Altmire was outspent almost 2 to 1. Murphy raised $2.4 million, a huge sum, but Michael Fitzpatrick had over $3 million at his disposal and that race was decided by 0.6% of the vote (1,521 votes). Clearly each had a strong message that worked with voters. Still, with such slim majorities they would have a better chance of securing their reelection if they could spend the next 20 months legislating and communicating their work with constituents without the huge workload of raising several million dollars.
Meanwhile, the Inquirer highlighted another PA congressman’s dilemma. Joe Sestak (D, PA-7) said:
I know fund-raising is important? but more important is outreach and getting people to know me.? Voters are like sailors.? They want you to look them in the eye, to grasp their concerns, to know you care.
As the paper points out, the former 3-star general knows how to lead and inspire, if he’s given the support and resources to do it.
Solution:
This morning the Philadelphia Daily News endorsed legislation for public financing of congressional elections introduced on Tuesday by a bicameral, bi-partisan team featuring Sens. Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter, and Reps John Tierney, Todd Platts and Raul Grijalva.
The Daily News, The Baltimore Sun, Adam B (on Daily Kos) and a host of other bloggers and journalists are endorsing public financing at the state and national level. This is great news for the state of the nation, and we need to make sure the momentum grows.
Under public financing, the 2008 races could be spent talking to constituents door-to-door and at town hall meetings, instead of at high-dollar events with a handful of people who are already convinced to vote for them. In fact, Durbin’s proposals encourage candidates to choose grassroots campaigning because they can qualify for public funds with small donations of $5 from average citizens. Under public financing, Jason Altmire, Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy would both have been given matching funds to level the playing field. How many more voters could they reach in November 2008 with that kind of freedom?
I’m guessing they could reach a whole bunch more voters the next time around, to answer your question.
I’m a big fan of public financing, and on the issue of new members and competitive races, I think it would make recruitment easier and encourage many new and bright up-and-comers to throw their hats in the ring for Congress, like Altmire and Murphy did.