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

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less