Last week at CPAC we talked with former candidate Niles Brush about the difficulties he encountered while running for the state senate in Montana:
:
Mr. Brush sums up: “We have real discrepancies about campaign laws; about what is legal, what isn’t legal, it makes it really difficult to run especially if you’re a candidate like me who isn’t rich and can’t afford a lawyer…I spend about 5-10% of my campaign time just making sure I’ve fulfilled all the campaign requirements for the state.”
Non-incumbent candidates have a much harder time successfully campaigning compared to their incumbent opponents. Low contribution limits make it harder for challengers to raise enough money to afford campaign lawyers. Therefore, non-wealthy challengers are more likely to spend more time than incumbents working on compliance and disclosure, draining time they could be using to campaign. It’s a vicious cycle of incumbency protection.
However, in many states, a rise of outside spending in the recent election cycle demonstrated just how limiting low contribution limits are. Thankfully, some state legislatures, such as Vermont, have taken notice and are considering raising contribution limits. Although these politicians are considering raising contribution limits out of blatant self-interest, we are happy that the debate is starting to change from a discussion about limiting citizens’ rights to support candidates of their choosing to loosening restrictions in a way that will make politics more competitive.
