Campaign Finance, Small Donors and Republicans

By Fester:

Mark Ambinger is passing along this tidbit from a major campaign finance reformer that has me scratching my head:

On the panel, Wertheimer, who called himself a "genetic optimist," said he is confident that the new Congress will pass, and the new president will sign, a major overhaul of the public financing system for presidential campaigns, a key feature of which is a four-to-one match of small dollar contributions.

I'm trying to figure out why Republicans would agree to that change from an institutional point of view.  Even if, or espescially if they suffer the losses that US News and World Report reports that some insiders are worried about:

Some GOP insiders now predict that the Republicans will lose at least five seats in the Senate and 15 to 20 in the House, and it could get worse if gasoline prices continue to soar and the public remains in a disgruntled mood [h/t Atrios]

The remaining Republicans in this scenario are survivors from safe seats.  Furthermore the cycle of politics and seats at risk will look better for 2010 as it is a midterm where the opposition party typically picks up a few seats, and in 2012 when the GOP faces the freshmen of the class of 2006 and sees the House shift to slightly friendlier seats due to redistricting.  The Republicans who would be left are candidates who can win in very hostile environments under the current rule set.

Changing the current rule set to give a 4:1 match significantly disadvantages current Republican office holders while advantaging current Democratic officeholders.  The Democrats have successfully built a massive small donor based financing system in the past five years.  Under the current rule set Democrats can compete with Republicans by a combination of big money and a growing small money component. This rule change would swamp Republican fundraising instead of merely matching and barely beating it.  It would also allow Democrats the option of refusing some funds and become more ideologically coherent and aligned with popular interests instead of their funders interests. 

This same argument could have been written in2002 when McCain-Feingold banned national party soft money donations.  In fact it was written that McCain-Feingold was the Democratic Party Suicide Bill.  However six years later there is a Democratic majority (of what value is another issue) in both chambers of Congress, and the Democratic presidential nominee is the favorite to win the White House.  McCain-Feingold did not have a signiffcant negative impact on the Democratic Party's long run chancess.

However the Democratic Party of 2002 and the Democratic Party of 2008 are two very different creatures in its sources of support, hot button issues, activist influence and strategic direction.  And itis at this point of conflict that I have to question why Republican officials would vote for this rule change. 

The McCain-Feingold rule changes increased the power of activists, and small donors as aggregated small donors could now compete on the same playing field as large, instititutional donors.  Small donors have far less influence per person but as a unit, they can and have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to change the direction of the party by rejiggering the incentive structure through funding good candidates, funding primaries and backing up vulnerable incumbents.  This has worked as liberal activists are fairly close to median political positions.  However Republican incumbents have a good reason to fear their activists as they tend to be further from the median voters and issues positions. 

The activists with a proven ability to raise small donor money for the Republicans are the Paulites and the Christian conservatives.  When either group is the face of the Republican candidate in a barely competitive district, the  Republican probability of a win significantly decreases.  Even more importantly from an institutional power perspective is that these groups are the grunts of the Republican coalition and not its elite.  However being able to magnify their proportional influence by a factor of three or four would massively disrupt the party's power structure.  This is a fight that incumbent Republicans and their supporters don't want to wage as they have seen the costly rearguard that the Democratic establishment has been fighting against the bloggers and small donors for the past five years. 

I just don't see why Republican incumbents will vote for this bill, or allow it to pass without a filibuster vote as it is a direct inter-party threat, and more importantly, a massive intra-party institutional threat to their power.