Your Vote (?) Counts

When you file your individual income tax return, you aren't just giving the US Internal Revenue Service information (Big Data for Big Brother?) about your marital status, family size, spending habits, and favorite charities. You are also casting your vote.

You have the option of checking yes (for you and your spouse) if you want $3 per vote allocated to the Presidential Campaign Election fund. This requires no actual contribution on your part, but determines how many tax dollars get set aside in support of Presidential elections. According to the Federal Election Commission, deposits in the fund totaling $27,846,909 had been made by the US Treasury through October of 2016, resulting in a fund balance in excess of $317 million dollars.

Hanging chads?

In 2015, 5.4% of us voted to fund Presidential elections, while the majority (94.6% of us) either voted no or did not vote at all. In other words, of the almost 151 million individual tax returns filed in 2015, only about 8 million were in favor of funding the Presidential Election.

This represents a declining trend since the fund began in the 1970's (reliable tracking began in 1976). The highest rate of participation was in 1980 with 28.7% of return filers voting to designate funds for this purpose.

As noted on the chart, support for President Election Campaign Funding jumped from a 9% positive vote in 2005 to 10.9% support from 2006 return filers. Support has continued to decline in the years that followed.

What does this mean for future elections?

This let's-make-the-taxpayers-decide voting option came into effect in 1974 (after Watergate) in an effort to reduce the role of large private contributions in Presidential elections. Up until 2014, when Congress changed the law, a large portion of these funds went to fund political conventions for the two main parties - including more than 18 million each for the 2012 Republican and Democratic National Conventions.

I'm not sure stopping this is a good thing. Who is funding these boondoggles now? How much does it cost the right corporate donor to determine who gets to speak during prime time at one of these televised events?

I will leave it up to someone from the Harvard Business Review to scientifically interpret this data but it seems to me that in general we taxpayers don't want to 'support' the sausage factory that is Presidential politics.

(Or maybe taxpayers don't like to check boxes. Most of us are better trained at coloring in those little ovals on standardized tests.)

Taking Handouts?

According to data provided (in Excel ) by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Presidential Election primary candidates have not been actively taking advantage of these funds in recent elections. What gives? Apparently, if they take this money, they are not allowed to raise additional funds.

After the primary, there are funds available for the party nominee during the general election. According to the FEC , "For 2012, the grant was approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. However, the two major party presidential nominees in 2012 opted out of the public financing program in the general election. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period. The general election limit for publicly funded candidates for 2016 is $96,140,600. "

Apparently, in 2016 Presidential Election Candidates were planning to raise much more than the $96 million available to them through this fund.

Democrats who made it to the Presidential Primary in 2016 received $1,080,062 from this fund while other parties received $100,000. No funds were disbursed for the general election.

So let's review. Few taxpayers care enough about Presidential Politics to move their wrist or their mouse to check a box AND the candidates are not using the money that is available thanks to the 5% of taxpayers (or their cats) who fell asleep on the keyboard and accidentally DID check the box.

I wonder how many people are employed full time in managing this $317 million fund.

Maybe it's time to revisit the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, (aka FECA) <no "L">.

**** In case you were hoping for a point rather than just information in this post, there is a lesson for us accountants:

1. Numbers without context don't help much. ( I quoted a bunch of figures and didn't tell you what to do with the information.)
2. A pretty chart with no insight isn't that meaningful either.
3. I am in the wrong business (a $96 million dollar grant is too small?)
4. Our government's attempt at getting taxpayers involved in funding politics doesn't seem to be working.