They Did What !

Campaign finance reform comes up over and over demonstrating that many people are aware there is a serious problem with the current system. Reform bills have been passed but they have not fixed the problem. There is an obvious conflict of interest as legislators are essentially being asked to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to fundraising, which, in the current system, is the life’s blood of election campaigns. And of course there is heavy lobbying to prevent any such reform.

When a bill does manage to get through both houses and is signed into law, then it must run the gauntlet of constitutionality tests. Surviving that, the lawyers, lobbyists, and strategists begin the search for loopholes that will minimize its effectiveness.

This piece meal approach to fixing something as important as our election system is futile. We need a whole new approach and public financing seems to offer a promising alternative. In his book, As If We Were Grownups, Jeff Golden’s favorable arguments, as stated in previous blogs on this subject, seem sound.

When the taxes we pay are spent to promote larger profits and more protections for special interests while saddling the people with ever increasing costs and ever decreasing protections, our government is no longer working for us.

As long as we continue to allow our voting choices to be guided by the TV sound bites and slogans produced by PR companies and spin doctors, we are telling candidates that money is the most important factor in getting elected. We know from experience this money will inevitably be supplied by special interests that want access to and influence over legislators and the laws they pass.

On the other hand, if the public funded their campaigns, our legislator’s main consideration when passing bills would be our best interests. If we want that kind of government, we have to do more than just complain to each other. We need to take positive steps to take back our government. Public campaign financing is just such a step and it has already begun to take root at the local level.

Maine instituted public campaign funding known as clean elections (CE) in the mid 1990’s and currently CE members make up 83% of their senate and 84% of their house. Some form of CE reform has been implemented in Arizona (1998), North Carolina (2002), and New Mexico (2003). New Jersey, Connecticut and Portland, Oregon are also adopting CE options. These measures have been supported by 60%-80% of the people and embraced by equally large percentages of candidates.

A Hightower Lowdown article (February, 2007) said it better than I could:

“It is useless to wait for Washington to beak the political system’s debilitating addiction to the drug of special-interest bribery funds, so its up to us. In states and cities that have already achieved some form of clean elections, the Powers That Be did all they could to kill it. In every case, the initiative, energy, and success came from the Powers That Ought To Be: grassroots folks like you.”

Go to www.publiccampaign.org to find out how and what you can do to help the fight for clean elections. Don’t just talk about it, do something!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After considering why we need public campaign financing and who would be eligible to receive it we are left with the big question of cost. This is really a two-part question: How much would it cost? And how can the government afford to take on this new expenditure? Jeff Golden, in his book As If We Were Grownups, makes excellent points about both these issues.

Using figures from the last election cycle for President and Congress which Golden says exceeded $1 billion, he explains, even if that amount is increased to $2.billion it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the total 2005 budget. When you spread that over the 2 year cycle for Congress and 4 years for President, the annual cost for full public financing would be more like 1/30 of 1% of the total budget. In the larger scheme of things that is a very small amount to allocate to something that would restore control of our government to the people.

When it comes to looking at public campaign financing as a new expenditure, Golden points out that the hidden costs of special interests’ influence on legislation far exceeds anything we would spend on public financing. The truth of this is apparent if you look at the support various special interests give to candidates and then follow the dots to the legislation passed by those candidates.

Golden gives several examples of the cost of this influence:

The Medicare Rx bill: “When it came to the floor for a vote its price tag was $400 billion. A week later an “adjustment” put the cost at $535 billion” This bill is expected to increase pharmaceutical revenues somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 billion.

Farm subsidies: In regard to the larger than usual $200 billion farm bill, “…there’s a broad consensus of observers pointing out that a huge slice of that pie will go not to helping family farmers survive, keeping food prices down, helping our balance of trade, or creating jobs, but instead to fattening the bottom line of agribusiness corporations who donate millions to political campaigns.”

Military spending versus what we get for it: “…of the $450 billion to $700 billion we will spend on military and related security functions this year (the real amount depends on who you ask), there is consistent agreement among military professionals with no current ties to politics or industry that tens of billions – some would put it at hundreds of billions – will go to projects that will do nothing at all to make America more powerful or secure.”

For other examples, just follow the money:

Insurance companies that make contributions and the resulting lack of insurance reform that results;

Communication giants like AT&T whose contributions precede the passing of anti-consumer laws governing ownership and fees connected with media;

Financial services companies who contribute heavily and changes such as the bankruptcy laws that follow.

The influence special interests wield in the construction and passing of our laws is obvious. And these laws cost taxpayers billions of dollars while special interests rake in the profits. A small fraction of these dollars would fully fund public campaign financing and take that influence out of play.

Acknowledging what we are paying in these hidden costs, it clearly is not a question of, if we spend the money, but rather, a choice of how we spend it.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If, at this point, you are willing to consider that public financing of campaigns would serve our purposes as much if not more than the candidates, there still remain some difficult questions. First up is: How do we decide who is eligible for financing? It isn’t practical to just leave it open to anyone who wants to run for office. On the other hand, we certainly don’t want to set up complicated regulations that would call for a major administrative system to monitor the process.

In his book, As If We Were Grownups, Jeff Golden offers one possible approach based on an initiative that was included in Oregon’s 2000 ballot.

Basically, it would require small contributions say, $5, from a minimum number of voters, say, 10,000. Amassing that kind of support would indicate the aspiring candidate is serious and has the potential to run for office at taxpayer’s expense. The dollar and voter numbers could be adjusted for the various offices of Senator, Congressman, and President.

One advantage I see in this method is the return of the choice of candidates to the people. It would give local officials with exceptional leadership qualities access to national exposure through the support of their constituents, something they do not have now. Excellent leaders exist in states across the country but with the current system there is no viable path for them to reach the national level.

This method would also give major party candidates the ability to run for office without having to kowtow to special interests; and it would go a long way toward eliminating the “Old Boy�? system that gives us candidates based on political IOU’s rather than qualifications.

Eternal optimist that I am, I believe it might even make it possible for our elected officials to become what they should be, and what we need them to be, leaders.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

People talk about wanting to get big money, aka special interests, out of our government, but few seem to have a clear understanding of the how’s and why’s of accomplishing it. Ironically, the solution that is most obvious is also very unpopular – public campaign financing.

Public campaign financing is an idea that most people dismiss out of hand as I did for a long time. Then I read a little book written by Jeff Golden titled, As If We Were Grownups: A Collection of “Suicidal�? Political Speeches That Aren’t.

Golden believes that people are basically mature enough and good enough that if they are given all the facts, they will choose the common good over immediate self-interest. Based on that belief, Golden presents a series of speeches dealing with controversial issues. In adult to adult talk, he explains how the common good will be served by choosing a certain solution to a problem. The explanation makes it clear that a solution that may seem to go against your self-interest will, in the long run, serve you well.

One of the speeches deals with public campaign financing, a much maligned idea. Objections usually include negativity about supporting a candidate with opposing views, having other priorities for spending tax dollars, and just plain distain for politicians in general.

What such attitudes fail to consider is that our ability to have honest government that works for the good of the people hinges on how we pay for the election of that government. Deny it as they may, legislators are influenced by the special interests who pay to elect and re-elect them. If we are not willing to find a way to elect officials so they are beholden only to the people then we cannot expect them to work for our best interests.

Somewhere along the line our thinking about election campaigns got twisted resulting in the mistaken idea that these campaigns belong to the candidates. From that standpoint, public financing looks like we are being asked to contribute to their campaigns. However, as Golden says, it is important for us to understand:

“…these campaigns are not for the candidates but for us … (elections) are the final step in the process of selecting people to represent us, to make decisions for us…�?

In order to make informed selections, we need to know about all of our choices – all of the candidates with the potential to represent us well. As things stand now, we only hear about the candidates supported by the special interests funding their campaigns.

With public financing, candidates with good qualifications, new and innovative ideas, and motivations that are honest and untainted by special interests would have the opportunity to be seen and heard. It would give us alternatives and reduce, if not eliminate, the oft expressed desire to mark “none of the above�? on our ballots. To quote Golden, “That’s what public financing could do, not for them but for us.�?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)