Tell the Taxman "No" to Subsidizing Politicians
by Peter Flaherty

You have undoubtedly noticed the line on your tax return for the presidential campaign fund. The tax form clearly states that checking "yes" does not increase one's tax or reduce one's refund. But the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, financed by all U.S. taxpayers. So those who check yes are simply telling the government to allocate more general U.S. taxpayer money to the presidential campaign fund than would otherwise be the case.

In 1976, when this system was instituted, for every person who checked "yes," $1 in taxpayer money was allocated to the campaign fund. But the percentage of Americans checking "yes" fell steadily over the years, after peaking at about 29 percent in 1981.

Even with the poromise of "free money", almost 90 percent of taxpayers in recent years have checked the "no" box. Only about 11 or 12 percent of taxpayers have checked yes. The democratic process at work.

Rather than acknowledging the people's obvious displeasure with this scheme and abolishing it, Congress compounded the original error in the early 1990s by raising the check-off amount from $1 to $3. That way, much more taxpayer money could be funneled into presidential campaigns at the behest of an ever-decreasing minority of people.

Because of the change, the amount of tax money allocated to the fund skyrocketed from $27.6 million in 1993 to $71.3 million in 1994. That's a difference of about $44 million - money diverted from other functions of government, and paid for by all U.S. taxpayers. By 2002, the amount had decreased to $62 million as fewer taxpayers checked the box.

True to form, many members of Congress now want to raise the check-off amount to as much as $10. And into what kind of campaigns would this enlarged pot of money go?

This year, both George W. Bush and John Kerry have opted out of the taxpayer funding system, releasing them from the spending limits that comes with it. That leaves candidates like conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, who has received more than $5 million over the years. Among other things, LaRouche blames the September 11 attacks on "Jewish gangsters" and "Christian Zionists."

Lenora Fulani, an avowed Marxist whose New Alliance Party the FBI deemed "armed and dangerous," has collected $2.9 million. John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party has cashed in to the tune of $1.6 million. Hagelin advocated achieving peace in Kosovo by dispatching "Yogic flyers" to generate a "quantum-mechanical consciousness field."

Al Sharpton received $100,000 this year, which he seems to have quickly blown on fancy hotel stays and limo rides. Based on a complaint from my organization, the Federal Election Commission recently announced that Sharpton may have to give back the $100,000 amid allegations that he was ineligible to receive it.

Why should Americans be forced to subsidize the political speech of a bunch of nuts and hustlers?

To qualify for funding, all these fringe candidates have to do is raise over $5,000 in each of 20 states in contributions of $250 or less. The resulting federal matching funds enable them to disseminate their zany notions even farther and wider.

If such groups just raised money from willing contributors, that would be fine. But they should not be able to use the government to force money out of unwilling contributors. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Forcing citizens to subsidize political speech with which they disagree is the most serious problem with the present system, but there are others. We taxpayers have also been forced to subsidize corruption. In 1976, presidential candidate Milton Schapp got $300,000 in matching funds based on sham donations to his campaign.

We are promoting opportunism as well. After dropping out of the 1988 race, Gary Hart re-entered it several month later. Many accused him of doing this mainly to collect the million dollars in matching funds he would have forfeited had he stayed out.

Congress should either make the people who check yes actually pay extra, or better yet, abolish the scheme altogether. In the meantime, we taxpayers can send a strong, if mostly symbolic, message to the politicians who perpetuate this system by checking the "no" box as we prepare our tax returns each year.

Peter Flaherty is president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics and accountability in public life.