Money talks

The House of Representatives last week approved, largely along party lines, 235-190, a bill that would do away with taxpayer funding of presidential elections and would disband the Election Assistance Commission.

If passed by the Senate — pigs flying is a more distinct possibility — the new law would immediately return $200 million to the Treasury for deficit reduction, and would save about $500 million over the next five years.

The Democratic Senate could, perhaps, go along with a bill that simply eliminates funding for presidential elections, since that quaint notion is as dead as a hammer, killed by the current occupant of the White House.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama declined to accept taxpayer funding of his bid. That meant he could raise as much and spend as much as he wanted. Sen. John McCain did take the public offer, and was restricted to eking by on the mere $84 million public dole.

After McCain’s announcement, Obama went on to raise another $350 million for his run.

No presidential candidate is ever again likely to accept public funding, not, at least, unless and until the ceiling is substantially raised — which is unlikely in these tight times.

“The [public funds] are only relevant if you don’t want to win the presidency,” University of Massachusetts political science professor Ray La Raja told ABC News. “It’s just not enough money.”

President Obama is expecting to raise $1 billion in this presidential campaign cycle, up from the $800 million he raised in 2008. Republicans will raise that much, or more.

Senate Democrats won’t even bring the House bill up because of their insistence that doing away with the Election Assistance Commission will remove protections against voter suppression.

The Election Assistance Commission gives grants to states to help with federal elections, provides voluntary voting system guidelines, and certifies voting equipment.

It was created as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which came in response to the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election, according to ABC News.

The commission is, Republicans insist, an empty shell that eats money.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) claims that the commission currently spends more than half its budget on administration.

Democrats agree that the commission has its problems, but insist that they can be fixed.

We are inclined to agree with the GOP on this one.

A government agency that is spending half its budget on administration is probably broken beyond repair.

But that’s beside the main point.

If Congress were serious about fixing a political system that becomes a little more dysfunctional by the day, it would take the opposite tack: Make accepting taxpayer funding mandatory, take private money out of the equation.

Our political system is in dire straits.

It is not difficult to understand the root cause of its ailments.