Incumbent politicians have a lot of advantages in campaigns. They have networks of donors to call on for support. They have an in with party leaders and lobbyists. Their actions and press releases often make it into news reports.
Making matters worse, in many states, incumbents tilt campaign laws to favor their re-election. By imposing low limits on campaign contributions, legislators can force their opponents to spend more time fundraising instead of speaking with voters. Unfortunately, a new index by the Institute for Free Speech has just named Colorado one of the five worst states in the nation at protecting political giving freedom. In these states, challengers and political newcomers struggle to get their messages out.
These candidates often won’t know they’re running until it’s time to run. Then they may have to win primaries before worrying about success in November. Meanwhile, incumbents have their entire terms to rub elbows with powerful people and increase their name recognition with voters.
The result is a major head start for incumbents and challengers can’t catch up if contribution limits are too low. Recognizing this problem, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that contribution limits can be unconstitutional if they are “too low and too strict.” The court observed that such low limits can “harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability.”
Yet according to the institute, many states maintain low contribution limits that hinder the political process and restrict First Amendment rights. In a new Free Speech Index on political giving, Colorado, along with 10 other states, receives an “F” grade.
In fact, Colorado earns the worst grade in the nation for limits on individuals. Only one state has lower limits on the amount individuals can contribute to legislative candidates and only Alaska has lower limits on what contributors can give to political committees. Individuals in Colorado can give only $200 per election to candidates for the state Senate and state House of Representatives and the state imposes a limit of $575 per cycle on individual giving to political committees. These excessively low limits undoubtedly stifle important speech about candidates and elections in the Centennial State.
In all the debate over what can go wrong when people give money to candidates, we rarely stop to consider the benefits. Making a donation to a candidate or group with shared beliefs is one of the simplest and most effective ways for Americans to make their voices heard. These contributions fund campaign spending that raises awareness and interest in elections, especially among those least interested in government.
Contribution limits stand in the way of this process. They hinder candidates trying to spread their messages and make it harder for voters to learn about the choices they’ll be asked to make on Election Day. Perhaps most disappointing of all, they hobble political newcomers trying to shake up the system.
Not all states perform poorly in the institute’s index. Eleven states earn “A” grades and allow individuals to donate without limits to the candidates, parties and groups of their choice. Short of that goal, most states can improve their grades significantly by implementing simple reforms, such as adjusting limits for inflation.
States can’t erase all the advantages that come with incumbency, but they can empower challengers and give them a real chance to compete. Until then, citizens of Colorado must make do with a democracy that is less vibrant and less free, thanks to ineffective limits on the freedom to support candidates and causes.
This post originally ran in The Pueblo Chieftain April 29th 2018.
