Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What the Democrats' tax returns say about their support for public financing

Biden, Sanders, Harris

Tax returns show Joe Biden has donated to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund on an annual basis, while Bernie Sanders has done so occasionally and Kamala Harris has never contributed, at least during the years for which they have made their tax returns public.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images News

Public financing of federal campaigns has become a talking point for Democratic presidential candidates, most of whom have decried the corrupting influence of outside money in politics.

Tax returns released by several of the highest-profile candidates, however, reveal a disconnect between their speeches and their actions.

Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke have co-sponsored legislation in Congress to create or significantly expand public financing of congressional and presidential elections. But on the annual income tax returns they've made public, none has checked the box for participating in the only current federal public finance system — the largely moribund Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

And Bernie Sanders, the most prominent crusader for public financing, leaves the box unchecked in most years.

Those decisions have created a small but symbolic gap between words and deeds that political opponents love to pounce on. These candidates could also be exposing themselves to criticism they are being hypocritical, or at least insincere, on one of the most ambitious democracy reform ideas being deliberated in the 2020 presidential campaign.

In addition, none of the Democrats has asked to take money from the fund. To qualify for public money, presidential candidates must agree not to accept private contributions and cap their spending in each state. This puts modern-day candidates at a disadvantage in an era of skyrocketing campaign costs.


Created in its current form with the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms of 1974, the fund is filled by people willing to designate $3 each year, without adding to their tax bill.



Booker chose not to participate any year between 2009 and 2018, his fifth year as a senator from New Jersey. O'Rourke left the box unchecked on returns from 2008 to 2017, when he was the congressman for El Paso. Harris, a California senator, left the box empty on each filing for the past 15 years except in 2004, when she checked "no."

And Sanders, the Vermont senator who championed public financing when he ran for president last time, left the box unchecked six out of the past 10 years.

While only 4 percent of tax filers gave to the fund last year, according to the Federal Election Commission, the relative few who did so include other Democratic candidates who also support public campaign finance.

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts checked the box every year since 2008 and her Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota participated the past 13 consecutive years. Mayor Steve Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., checked it nine times in the past decade.

Joe Biden, who accepted $2 million from the program for a presidential bid in 2008 and is currently leading Democrats in the polls, checked the box on tax returns from 1998 to 2015. (He hasn't released returns for the three years since.)

Even Donald Trump, who spent $66 million of his own money in winning the presidency and opposes a new system of federal subsidies for candidates, checked the box on one tax return that's been partly leaked, for 2005.

Thirteen other Democratic presidential candidates — none of whom are polling well — haven't released any returns.

It's unclear why Booker, Harris, O'Rourke and Sanders left the box unchecked on most or all of their publicly released returns. None of their campaigns (or the senators' press offices) responded to requests for comment.

Highlighting a broken system

Longtime advocates of public campaign finance aren't concerned some of the candidates have not contributed to the fund. A variety of factors may have led to those decisions. Topping the list: The program is irrelevant.

The last major-party presidential candidate to seek funding through the program was Republican John McCain in 2008.

"I've been advocating for public financing systems for two decades, and I don't even check the box anymore," acknowledged Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Ryan said he wouldn't draw conclusions about any candidates' support for public financing based on the check-off system because the program is "completely broken."

In 2008, Barack Obama chose to forgo public funds in the general election in favor of collecting money from individuals, a strategy that helped him out-raise McCain by a 2-1 margin en route to the presidency. He also became the first president since Richard Nixon to run for president in the general election without public funding. (George W. Bush declined public funds in the 2000 Republican primary but accepted public funds in the general election.)

Ryan said the decisions by some of the 2020 candidates to leave the box blank might not have been conscious: Their tax preparers might have done it without asking.

Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21and advocate of public finance systems since the 1970s, said not checking off the box says little about a candidate's support for current legislation in Congress seeking to improve public financing of elections. He called the presidential election fund "inoperable."

"For us, that is not a basis for raising concerns about where candidates stand on campaign finance reform," Wertheimer said.

Unlike the presidential campaign fund, legislation cosponsored by all seven senatorsseeking the White House would allow for individual donations while providing Senate and presidential candidates with $6 for every $1 raised in small donations. The legislation is similar to the public financing provisions in the catchall political process overhaul bill known as HR 1 passed by the new House Democratic majority this spring. Republican majority leaders say neither bill is ever going to get a vote in the Senate.

"The way to judge any candidate for federal office is whether they support, or are willing to work for, a small-donor, public matching funds system for all federal candidates," Wertheimer said. "From my perspective, I would prefer people check it off, but I don't think it's a fair way to judge where they stand on the current finance system or on creating a new one."


Read More

Trump’s second term is a murky, embarrassing and costly spectacle

U.S. President Donald Trump displays a graph entitled "Our Pool is Bigger than Skyscrapers" as he speaks on his renovations to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on June 3, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images/TNS)

Trump’s second term is a murky, embarrassing and costly spectacle

Every time I get asked by a TV anchor what I think about the drama of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, my favorite “historical” headline from the Onion comes to mind: “World’s Largest Metaphor Hits Ice-Berg.”

And every time I do, I hear from defenders of the Trump administration complaining about the disproportionate media coverage of what should be a very minor story in the grand sweep of things. They have a point. President Trump has done some good work rehabbing Washington, D.C., where I live. But the Reflecting Pool has bedeviled him. Algae keep returning to the pool, despite the administration’s best efforts, and attempts to remedy the problem have yielded further problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
Only Trump doesn’t care about housing

A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2026. President Donald Trump jolted Republicans during a fiery appearance at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, scrapping a housing bill signing ceremony and clashing behind closed doors with a party rebel who challenged him over the Iran war. Trump had been expected to sign the bipartisan housing.

(AFP via Getty Images)

Only Trump doesn’t care about housing

It was August 15, 2024. Then candidate Donald Trump stepped out of his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club’s columned clubhouse to a gaggle of reporters. He was flanked by tables of groceries and signs showing the rising cost of food. Also on one of the tables was a dollhouse, meant to represent the equally alarming rise in housing prices.

It was a speech about the economy, the single most important issue of the 2024 election cycle, full of promises that went right to the heart of Americans’ anxieties. While former President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris were contorting themselves to posture a good economy that just needed more time to recover from the pandemic, Trump was preying on voters’ very real fears of unaffordable gas, groceries, and homes. It was obviously a winning message.

Keep ReadingShow less