The presidential public funding system has been under strain in recent years. Revenue trends for the funding of the program show a continuing decline in taxpayer checkoff rates, as well as a decline in the monies available to the program in recent election cycles. These financial concerns have been exacerbated by payment priorities established in the law that require the U.S. Treasury to first set aside the sums needed for the general election, then the convention subsidies, and finally, the matching fund payments. This has, at times, led to temporary shortfalls in the amount of money available to meet matching fund payments early in the presidential election year. In 2000, for example, the FEC was unable to make timely matching fund payments to candidates for a number of months.
A greater problem relates to the spending limits, especially during the primary campaign. The front-loading of the presidential selection process—the decisions by states to move the scheduling of their respective presidential primaries or caucuses to earlier and earlier dates in the election year—has increased the need to spend money early in the process and increased the cost of presidential primary campaigns. The spending ceilings, however, have not been revised to reflect these changes in the process, and thus have become a major strategic concern for candidates, who now face the possibility of running out of room to spend money as early as March of the election year. This has led many candidates to question whether the benefits offered by public funds are worth the strategic risks created by the spending restrictions.
In 2000, George W. Bush became the first major party presidential nominee to decide to forgo public matching funds and spending limits during the primaries. In 2004, both major party nominees, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, have chosen to opt out of the system during the primary campaign. Howard Dean, one of the principal contenders for the Democratic nomination, also decided to refuse public funds.
The experience of the 2004 campaign has highlighted the inadequacies of the increasingly outdated rules of the public funding system and the need for major revisions in the law. In November 2003, the same Members of Congress who served as the primary sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold and Representatives Martin Meehan and Christopher Shays—introduced legislation to address the problems of the public funding program. This legislation would increase the amount of the tax checkoff, allow qualified candidates to receive matching funds before the beginning of the election year, and raise the ceilings on spending.
