New York City residents cast their ballots last week in primaries for mayor, city council, and a handful of other races. Among these largely uncompetitive races was the contest in City Council District 7, which includes Harlem and upper Manhattan, where incumbent Mark Levine trounced challenger Thomas Lopez-Pierre 75 percent to 25 percent.
It wasn’t competitive, but it was significant.
Lopez-Pierre campaign’s messaging blamed “greedy Jewish landlords” for the lack of affordable housing in the district.
As if the message itself wasn’t disgusting enough, New York City residents should be further disgusted because they helped pay for it.
Lopez-Pierre raised only $17,000 to spend on spreading his message of intolerance. But the taxpayers of New York involuntarily chipped in an additional $100,000.
That’s because the city’s public financing campaign scheme provides $6 for every $1 a qualified candidate raises. So, while the vast majority of taxpayers and voters rejected Lopez-Pierre and his rhetoric, they nonetheless subsidized the spread of his objectionable views.
This incident gets at the very heart of why publicly-financed campaigns run counter to America’s principles. While everyone has a First Amendment right to express opinions others may find objectionable, no one has a right to force their fellow citizens to subsidize that speech. But publicly-financed campaigns turn this concept on its head by forcing citizens to hand over their hard-earned money for the express purpose of funding political speech they may disagree with.
Could you imagine if the government came to a synagogue and demanded that congregants fund a neo-Nazi candidate? Or if Cuban refugees were forced to fund a communist one?
Citizens would be outraged, protests would erupt, and the program would be shut down.
Yet, somehow when the money goes into a large pool and is then doled out to candidates, regardless of the asinine views they may hold, the program is hailed by some as a triumph of democracy.
The irony of public financing is on par with the offensiveness — the purported benefits of the system have failed to materialize.
Proponents argue that publicly-financed campaigns get big money out of politics, reduce corruption, and give the little guy a chance at winning. But all the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Seattle recently introduced a “democracy voucher” program, which mailed four $25 vouchers for citizens of Seattle to contribute public funds to candidates. It was a resounding failure. Novice political candidates spent all their time attempting to navigate the complicated requirements to qualify for the vouchers instead of getting their message out.
Meanwhile, the well-connected and already well-funded candidates were also able to utilize the program, adding to their existing advantages, and secured easy victories.
To top things off, there was also an alleged case of fraud. Just as in Seattle, it’s hard to argue that New York City’s public campaign finance program provided much benefit to lesser-known candidates.
The right to run for office and to speak one’s mind are among the central tenets of the American political process, and they have helped make our republic strong and vibrant from its beginnings to the present day. But being forced to fund speech you disagree with is not one of these core values.
Cities and states should look to this shameful episode as just another example of how publicly-financed campaigns can go wrong. The next time any politician suggests using taxpayer money to fund their campaigns, ask yourself, “What kind of speech are they asking me to pay for?”
Eric Peterson (@IllinoisEric89) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
