The Campaign Finance Institute has released a study on implementing taxpayer financed political welfare for politicians in the Empire State.  Claiming that this would cost New York taxpayers only about two dollars per resident, University of Albany professor and CFI’s Executive Director Michael Malbin also claims in the report that: “There is no question that big donors dominate the Empire State’s politics.”

Although there is data that public financing does increase the number of donors, it has also been shown that the donor pool tends to remain homogenous.  It makes sense; politically active donors responding to artificially low contribution limits are more likely to go to their friends and neighbors on behalf of a candidate, particularly if a small sacrifice on their friend’s part yields an outsized benefit for their friend’s chosen cause.

So who does this help most? From a politician’s perspective, the candidate with access to a broader donor base than their opponent have an even greater advantage over their opponent than under the current system.  Of course, it’s no secret that incumbents are far more likely to hold this advantage over political newcomers.

Unfortunately, there are greater issues at play than incumbency protection. Valuable taxpayer money that should be used for the proper functions of government, such as law enforcement and emergency services, should not be diverted from the treasury to represent constituencies that already represented the bulk of political donations.  With New York State in over three hundred BILLION dollars in debt, their candidates do not need another program that makes their politicians less accountable to their constituency.  And, if New York City’s foray into public financing is any indication, there will be significant costs associated with prosecuting the corruption that follows such a lucrative government handout.