“Legitimacy Matters: The Case for Public Financing in Prosecutor Elections”
Hat tip to Prof. Doug Berman for his post here (emphasis my own):
The title of this post is the title of this new article in the latest issue of the Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice authored by Rory Fleming. Here is a part of its introduction:
Part I of this Article will present the results of two interlinked studies on candidate campaign finance in every election with a progressive prosecutor candidate from 2015 through 2019. The first study examines campaign funding disparities between incumbent prosecutors and progressive challengers, while the second examines the differentials using the Cost Per Vote (CPV) metric. Part II will discuss the major findings of the two studies, such as how progressive challengers in Democratic primaries seem to only win when a sufficient amount of Soros PAC money is granted, and how higher CPV values translate to greater tensions between local prosecutor offices and their communities. Part III traces how the Soros-reliant funding model for progressive prosecutors has created an unprecedented crisis of prosecutorial legitimacy in many major urban counties. Part IV presents public funding for prosecutor selections as one solution that can balance the desirability of competitiveness in prosecutor elections with the need to curb the backlash against prosecutors working to end mass incarceration.
This is a major problem that cries out for critical attention. The article points to the real reason we see more and more “progressive prosecutors.” It’s not that going soft on criminals has become popular. It’s something rather different — in two words, Soros money.
We’ve seen it more than once: The county or city prosecutor’s race is almost always a down-ballot contest that typically draws little by way of interest or contributions. This is particularly true at the primary stage, which is generally months before the general election. What the Soros-backed forces will do is concentrate on one-party (in practice, Democratic) jurisdictions. They put up and lavishly finance a far left challenger to the incumbent. This has a decent chance of success, particularly with the more left-leaning ideologically-inclined voters who tend to turn out for the primary. When it succeeds, as it did in Philadelphia or Arlington, VA (to name two), the primary winner is all but guaranteed to win in the general election. We are now seeing the results. (California district attorney elections are non-partisan.)
For those who favor public financing of elections in order to help assure that Big Money does not tell the tale for an enormously important and powerful job, DA contests would be an excellent place to start.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Are you suggesting you are in favor of public financing of all elections, Bill, or just those for DAs?
CJLF takes no position on that issue. Personally, I am opposed to public financing of political campaigns in all elections. Once government gets involved in financing campaigns, it will inevitably have to make decisions as to who gets how much. We should keep Pandora’s Box tightly closed.
I am undecided on the question. Generally, I oppose public financing of elections. As your entry (which I have repeated here) notes, however, there is a unique problem with, shall we say, “discrete and insular” jurisdictions where the primary process is largely under the radar except for the most partisan voters; where an extreme, ideological billionaire like Soros can flood the jurisdiction with overwhelming amounts of money; and where a narrow majority of primary voters can turn out to be decisive in putting in office a far Left candidate who is nowhere near the actual mainstream thinking in that district.
As I say, I am undecided on what the remedy should be. Like Kent, I am leery of opening the door to public financing of elections, since that could easily turn out to be the nose of a big and ugly camel. But I want to thank you for bringing this problem to public attention by posting about it and one possible remedy. If you have others in mind, I’m all ears.