One fabulously rich person (or a gaggle of them) would put X million dollars into a trust that expires November 9th. X would have to be very large. Probably several hundred million.The rules would be simple. You could choose a funding cap for all candidates, x, which is much, much smaller than X. Say, $100 million. Plenty of money for a modest number of attack ads, since the parties must have a little fun.
The key: If any one candidate’s super PACs raised more than x, then the trust would automatically release an equivalent amount of funds to the opponent’s super PACs. The trust would be ready to hurl all its money if it must.
So would this work? Kevin Collins is doubtful:
Unlikely. Requires large donors to care more about election process than outcomes
And most do care about outcomes. And yet still…couldn’t there be one who cares about process? That’s all it would take under Chris’s scheme.
Here’s another thought, however. What would a candidate do in response to this? Raise money under the cap? Or just try to raise so much money that they think they can endure having Richie Rich’s trust flow to their opponent? In other words, perhaps candidates just say, “Okay, Richie’s fund has X. We’ll raise 3 times X.” Admittedly, if X is large enough, this strategy may not work. But when it comes to betting on campaign fundraising, I usually take the over.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s also very likely unconstitutional under Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=1)
The decision basically says that you cannot make public funds given to one candidate contingent on the amount of campaign expenditures by another.
That decision seems only to say that governments can’t do it, not that no one can do it.
Politicians could arrange everything in advance with major donors, ad agencies, etc., to have major donations deposited and paid out for an advertising blitz on the last day of the campaign, not providing sufficient time for the fund to disburse monies to the other candidates (or for those candidates to put it to good use).
Good thought. Though waiting till the last day means they’d lose the “bandwagon” effect of being seen to have a large war chest. There would also be discount rate issues — “should I take the money now or should I hope the donor’s commitment lasts till that last day? If I make any major gaffes, I’ll wish I had the money for damage control and the donor might pull out.”