Karen Bass’ Taxpayer-Funded Campaign Cash Is Exactly What’s Wrong With California

For every qualifying local donation to Karen Bass’ reelection campaign, Los Angeles adds six times the amount in public matching funds — taxpayer dollars, regardless of whether residents support her. Now, California Democrats want to take the scheme statewide. That should concern every Californian, regardless of political party.

Read more Beloved Family Movie Makes Epic 20th Anniversary Comeback

In a campaign video, Bass urged supporters to donate to her reelection campaign and explained that qualifying contributions from Los Angeles residents would be matched at a 6-to-1 ratio through Los Angeles’ public financing program. Donate $5, she explained, and it becomes $35. Under the rules, donations up to $257 qualify for matching funds, meaning a maximum $257 donation can generate $1,542 in public matching funds, bringing the total value of the contribution to $1,799. That’s not only outrageous but also math that could sway a campaign.

Think about it. A politician running for reelection asks you for a little money to help keep herself in office, and the government then multiplies it by six. Bass isn’t hiding it. She’s proud to divert her residents’ hard-earned money from streets overrun with homelessness, a police force understaffed by 3,300 officers, and a collapsing school district to stay in power.

And yes, this is legal. But legal doesn’t mean democratic, beneficial, or legitimate.

No business could justify taking customers’ money to finance an executive’s campaign to keep his job. Yet in government, politicians expect taxpayers to accept essentially the same arrangement simply because lawmakers wrote the rules.

That’s the problem. The Bass campaign’s use of the six-to-one match reflects a California political culture so focused on preserving power that it doesn’t even realize it has forgotten about its actual job, serving residents.

This is how waste and abuse take root, not always through some dramatic illegal scheme, but through layers of programs and spending decisions that can be defended as technically permissible because lawmakers made crazy laws, leaving taxpayers to ask why their money is being spent without any public benefit in the first place.

Someone who voted for Spencer Pratt is helping fund Karen Bass’ reelection campaign. So is someone who voted for Nithya Raman, a DSA candidate. They likely disagree on almost everything politically, but taxpayers on both sides fund the political machine that doesn’t care about them or their concerns.

The concept of public campaign financing is legitimate. Supporters argue it gets more everyday people involved in elections and reduces candidates’ reliance on wealthy donors. But the reality is that taxpayers are forced to bankroll campaigns they may not support simply because politicians created the program.

And there is little reason to believe California’s political establishment would suddenly become less dependent on wealthy donors and special interests simply because it gained another source of campaign cash. There is no guarantee it improves democracy or changes election outcomes. What it guarantees is another avenue for public money to enter political campaigns.

Now, California voters are being asked to open the door to this kind of public campaign financing statewide. Proposition 4, on the November ballot, would repeal the state’s ban on using public money for political campaigns and establish rules for candidates to qualify for public funding.

Read more At Least 25 Percent Of Dead NFL Players Diagnosed With CTE In Sample, Study Says

California Democrats may call it campaign-finance reform. But forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns should be a massive red flag.

California will not reform itself by giving the political class another source of taxpayer money. If politicians can centralize more financial power in the same system that already governs the state, there is little incentive to pursue balance, reason, or greater responsiveness to citizens. Real reform means taking power away from the political class, not giving it another source of money.

California doesn’t have a shortage of money. It has a shortage of accountability.

Meanwhile, Californians are dealing with high costs, businesses are struggling under the weight of regulations and taxes, and communities cry out for better public safety, infrastructure, and meaningful solutions to homelessness — but are faced with mockery and silence. The government should focus on protecting freedom and delivering results, not on finding new ways to strengthen the political establishment.

The principle should apply regardless of who is in office. If a Republican mayor were asking taxpayers to multiply their campaign donations six-to-one, I would oppose that too.

California doesn’t need politicians with more control over taxpayer money. It needs taxpayers with more control over politicians.

We need leaders willing to follow the money, expose waste, and hold powerful people accountable, even when the ones under investigation are politically connected. Politicians are entrusted with taxpayers’ money, not entitled to it. Elected leaders, like Karen Bass, should never forget the difference.

Jenny Rae Le Roux (@JennyRaeCA) is the Republican nominee for California’s 47th Congressional District.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.

Read more Class Dismissed: School Named After Obama Shuts Doors Indefinitely