Case for Clean Elections:
We all know that money from large special interests – mostly corporate – is increasingly corrupting our political process. Obviously and always – despite denials – it skews lawmaking away from the true needs of the poor and powerless, toward the special favors, tax breaks, and public policies desired by deep-pocket donors. Perhaps the best example: Despite our best efforts, we won’t make significant progress on affordable and universal health coverage for all, so long as insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, et al, continue to “buy” public policy and lawmaking in their own interest and against the common good.
Public financing of campaigns (Clean Elections) provides resources so that ordinary people can run for office, win, and then stare down the corporate lobbyists. It allows incumbents to spend time with voters instead of dialing for dollars. And it removes the burden of always having to donate, from those of us who would rather spend our resources to educate voters on issues and mobilize them to register and vote.
Indeed, WPC believes public financing of campaigns is the natural order of things. Private funding, by contrast, is probably not what democratic framers had in mind. It skews the electoral system toward candidates that are good at raising money, but not necessarily representative of the people’s interest.
It’s not just theory: Arizona and Maine – two states that enacted Clean Elections by citizen initiative – have proven it works. Incumbent legislators, candidates, small business, donors, and especially the people, love it. Those states will never go back to the old system of private campaign financing.
2007 Legislative Action:
We have an unprecedented opportunity to make progress on this issue, this 2007 legislative session. Governor Gregoire is supporting legislation to publicly-fund judicial elections, obviously driven by last year’s unconscionable attempt, by the building industry lobby and out-of-state interests, to “buy” our state Supreme Court. Her proposal will probably be enacted, but it won’t be a cakewalk; we need to mobilize public support.
WPC wants also to put the whole banana before the legislature – and Rep. Mark Miloscia and Sen. Jim Kastama are doing just that, introducing bills for a comprehensive program, like Arizona and Maine. Of course it’s unlikely to pass in one session, but if we don’t push for full legislative hearings and discussion this year, it will never happen. And this year’s discussion of a judicial bill provides an excellent opening for media coverage and a statewide conversation about the whole concept and how well it works in other states. That helps to base-build, for future advocacy.
The need for endorsements and coalition partners:
Our legislative proponents (Miloscia, Kastama, Joe McDermott, and others) are out on a limb, proposing to change the system by which every legislator and public official has campaigned and been elected so far. We need to demonstrate massive public support – at hearings, through media work, and in public – to make this reform possible.
Clean Elections is “the reform that makes all other reforms possible.” That’s why we hope every organization standing for the common good, will endorse and support this effort. We simply must make elections about voters and issues, instead of about money. That’s what happens, when campaigns are funded publicly instead of privately.
We ask endorsers to stand with us at legislative hearings, to help us to spread word among our respective constituencies, and to be willing to be identified publicly as strong proponents and endorsers of public financing of campaigns.
Questions and Answers about Clean Elections:
Q: Under Clean Elections, is public financing mandatory for campaigns?
A: No, it is voluntary. Incumbents and candidates can still choose to run using their own or private money – because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “money is speech” and therefore, there can be no Constitutional restriction against any candidate using their own money, or private contributions, to privately fund their campaign. But there are strong benefits to running as a Clean Candidate.
Q: Then, what’s the point? Why do incumbents and candidates choose to run “Clean”?
A: If incumbents or candidates opt for public financing, they voluntarily agree not to use any more of their own private money, and not to accept any private contributions – except the $5 “qualifying” contributions from voters in their district, needed at the outset to be certified by the state regulatory commission as eligible for public financing. Then, they receive an allotment from the state fund, to fully fund their primary campaign, and later, their general campaign. It allows ordinary people with limited means to run; it frees them from “dialing for dollars” and it allows them more time with voters and issues.
And, they win! Eighty-three percent (83%) of the Maine state House are now legislators who ran “Clean”.
Q: What keeps the playing field level?
A: If “Clean Elections” candidates are outspent by an opponent running on his or her own private money, they receive Matching Funds – equal to what their opponent spends – to keep the playing field level (up to a limit – three to five times the starting allotment).
Q: What about third-party (independent 527 organizations) expenditures?
A: Independent expenditures are not restricted by Arizona or Maine Clean Elections laws.
However, Clean Elections candidates receive Matching Funds, equal to what is spent by 527 organizations, to pay for a response – and these Matching Fund are available within 24 hours.
In Arizona, this feature actually has discouraged “Swift Boat” independent attack ads – because the 527 organizations by law cannot coordinate with an opponent’s campaign, yet any expenditure they make on behalf of an opposition candidate, simply has the effect of increasing the funds available to the Clean Elections candidate for their campaign. So independent groups have quickly learned to curtail their attack or opposition ads, because it ends up helping the Clean Elections candidate, through the Matching Funds feature.
Q: Does the Clean Elections law interfere in any way with funding or programs for voter education or voter registration?
A: No. Actually, in Arizona and Maine, voter education and registration programs are stronger – because the sponsoring organizations can use resources for that, which previously might have been needed for direct contributions to candidates.
Unions, political parties, and other elections-interested organizations, love the Clean Elections program – now that they see how it works – because elections are now about people, voters, voting turnout, and issues, rather than about money and who has the deepest financial pocket.
Q: Who likes – and dislikes – Clean Elections?
A: Incumbents love it – because they no longer need to spend time “dialing for dollars” They are free to spend their time with voters, and studying issues. In Maine, 91% of incumbents who ran “Clean” were re-elected in the recent election.
Candidates love it – because they don’t have to have personal wealth to run. Clean Elections has allowed greater diversity in candidates and in views – more women, more people of color, more ordinary people from a variety of professions and backgrounds, who are not wealthy.
Small businesses love it – because they are no longer “hit up” every week for contributions. Even some large companies love it – those who prefer to focus on their business rather than engaging in politics.
Most important, the voters love it – because, finally, their voice is heard, and their legislator truly is accountable to voters in the district, rather than to big financial contributors.
Only those special interests – most often, corporate – that seek to skew our democracy – dislike Clean Elections, because they lose their ability to buy their own candidate or unduly influence public policy.
Current Comments