News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Accepting taxpayer cash would reflect Gov. Steve Bullock's campaign message about big money's threat to democracy.

Bullock wants public financing, but the FEC's powerless to give it to him

Steve Bullock is hoping to rejuvenate his lagging presidential bid with an infusion from a rarely tapped vein of public money — but he's going to be stymied indefinitely because the federal officials tasked with approving the move have been stopped from doing their jobs.

More than any other White House aspirant, Montana's governor has focused his campaign on a commitment to getting big money out of politics, which he sees at the root of Washington's dysfunction and de facto corruption. And so his application to become the first — and probably the only — 2020 candidate to use taxpayer funds for his campaign can fairly be described as walking the walk after talking the talk.

Except the Federal Election Commission has been effectively shuttered for one month for lack of a quorum, so it does not have the legal authority to give him the go ahead.


The Bullock campaign said it would file the papers Tuesday, right after the end of the third quarter for fundraising. At that point the FEC is supposed to audit the campaign's books to ensure he qualifies.

It's normally a straightforward undertaking, and there seems little doubt about the outcome, but it cannot happen until there are at least four commissioners in office. And the Senate has taken no steps toward confirming President Trump's single nominee for one of the three vacancies.

An alternative is to sue in federal court to make the Treasury release the money, an approach Republican Sen. John McCain was starting to pursue while the FEC lacked a quorum during a stretch of his 2008 presidential bid.

All the top presidential contenders routinely relied on the public financing system during the first decades after it was created, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, to reduce the influence of big-money donors. George W. Bush in 2000 started the trend against taking the money, which requires candidates to abide by strict spending limits. The trend has become conventional practice since the courts and the FEC have energized the flow of cash through the system.

If Bullock ends up with public money, he will be the first Democratic presidential candidate to get some since former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley received $1.1 million during his short-lived run of 2016. And that year, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received $456,035.

Under the system, tax dollars match the first $250 of each contribution eligible candidates in the primaries receive from individuals. The money comes from people who allocate $3 off their taxes to the fund on their federal returns.

Bullock has made a single debate stage appearance, in July, and his fundraising numbers and poll showing (consistently less than 1 percent) mean he's been excluded from the October debate.

In the second quarter, April through June, he raised $2.1 million — while the top fundraiser at the time, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., hauled in $24.9 million. In the same time period, Bullock spent $582,748 — so he's nowhere close to reaching the limits on spending, measured in the tens of millions of dollars, that govern public financing recipients.

Bullock's second quarter haul suggests he could be eligible for an addition $1 million or $2 million. His campaign declined to say how much he will report when third quarter totals have to be submitted on Oct. 15.

News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.

Ballot measures are good democracy — but only if you can understand them

Marginal improvements have been made to help voters understand the questions posed to them on the ballot this November, a new study concludes, but such ballot measures still favor the college-educated — who represent a minority of the U.S. population.

This year voters in eight states will decide the fate of a collective 36 such propositions. In a study released Thursday, Ballotpedia assessed how easy it is to comprehend what each proposal would accomplish, concluding that the difficulty level had decreased compared with the referendums decided in the last off-year election of 2017 — but not by much.

In fact, according to a pair of well-established tests, 21 of the 36 ballot measures cannot be understood by the 40 percent of the voting-age population who never attended college.

Keep reading... Show less
Balance of Power
teguhjatipras/Getty Images

Two states asking Supreme Court for permission to regulate Electoral College conduct

Colorado has become the second state to ask the Supreme Court to decide if states may legally bind their presidential electors to vote for the candidate who carried their state.

The issue of so-called faithless electors is the latest aspect of an increasingly heated debate about the virtues and flaws of the Electoral College that has blossomed, especially among progressive democracy reform advocates, now that two of the past five presidential winners (Donald Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in 2000) got to the Oval Office despite losing the national popular vote.

Keep reading... Show less