Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Dems Must End Legalized Bribery of Campaign Finance

By David Sirota, TomPaine.com. Posted November 23, 2006.


D.C.'s "culture of corruption" has very little to do with lobbyist gifts and everything to do with the Big Money bribery that is today's campaign finance system.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by David Sirota

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


It is now conventional wisdom that the 2006 election was decided on two major issues: Iraq and corruption. Exit polls show that's the case, and even Karl Rove admits it. That this storyline has become such a given is particularly humorous for me. It was just a few months ago that I was criss-crossing the country on a 40-city tour for my book,Hostile Takeover, telling audiences not to listen to Washington pundits who said corruption important; that, in fact, corruption was going to play a major role in the election, and that if Democrats refused to take the issue seriously when they claimed the majority, we could be in for the shortest congressional majority of the last century.



But, many people I met asked, “What does it mean for Democrats to take the issue ‘seriously’?” The answer is simple: They must attack not only the headline-grabbing excesses of gifts, trips and meals, but also, more significantly, go after the core of the problem, which is the nexus of money and politics. Specifically, they must push to publicly finance all congressional elections.



I know, I know—I and other groups like Public Campaign have probably sounded like a broken record on this issue for a long time now. But that's only because the campaign financing system really is at the root of corruption. We have a system that is legalized bribery—legal campaign contributions go in, and legal legislative favors go out. But just because it is legal, doesn't mean it isn't unethical and isn't one of the major reasons why our government can no longer solve problems. It is. A government cannot solve problems if members of Congress making decisions are forced by virtue of their campaign finances to appease the Big Money interests that are often at the root of those problems.



So what are the prospects for congressional action on public financing with an election mandate at lawmakers' back? Here is a look at the proponents and opponents—and what will make the difference.



The Good Signs



Buried in a Sunday New York Times article we get our first glimpse of the major players pushing real reform:

"Spurred by the election results, several Democrats in addition to [Illinois Democratic senator] Mr. [Barack] Obama are pushing bigger changes. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, is preparing a proposal for some form of public financing or free broadcast time for congressional candidates to reduce their dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 21 newly elected Democrats, more than half the class, and 69 incumbents have signed a pledge endorsing the idea."

Obama could be particularly pivotal. As I reported from my interview with him for The Nation earlier this year, the Illinois senator has shied away from pushing any proposal on any issue that fundamentally challenges the Washington power equation. However, the one issue that he appears willing to consider spending his political capital on is campaign finance reform. As an Illinois state legislator, he authored a bill to publicly finance his state's judicial elections. And recall his appearance on "Meet the Press" in January of 2006:
SEN. OBAMA: This is the part of the job I dislike the most, which is having to raise money. It is something that none of us are immune from because of the amount of money that has to be raised in order to get on television and run campaigns. It is a problem that I have to deal with, it’s a problem that John McCain has to deal with, it’s a problem that Russ Feingold has to deal with. It’s something that all of us wrestle with. My belief in terms of moving forward on the ethics legislation is that we’ve got some low-hanging fruit that we should take care of right away…There are some easy things that we can do that hopefully will build momentum for some of the tougher stuff, which involves, how do we reduce the enormous amounts of money in politics generally? And those are going to be some tough questions, because they might involve, for example, asking the question, “Why don’t we have free television time, for candidates, to reduce the amounts of costs?” My suspicion is that NBC, just like ABC and CBS, wouldn’t necessarily be wild about those approaches, but that’s the kind of conversation over the long term we’re going to have to have. This is a starting point.


MR. RUSSERT: Would you consider public financing of campaigns?



SEN. OBAMA: I think that we should consider all approaches that would reduce the amounts of money that are required for campaigns.

Obama, of course, is not alone. Well-respected lawmakers have been pushing public financing for some time, including top Democrats who authored bills in the last Congress. Meanwhile, polls show the public has long supported the concept. As recently as 2000, the Washington Post reported that national polling on the issue showed "respondents did show enthusiasm for [public financing systems] that have already been endorsed by voters in Maine, Arizona, Vermont and Massachusetts." Even "when pollsters offered criticism of public financing, suggesting for instance that it would be 'welfare for politicians' and would encourage more fringe candidates to run, support for full public funding remained at 67 percent." The overwhelming popularity of the idea explains why at least some moderate Republican senators have indicated interest in supporting the concept.



The Bad Signs



In the same Sunday New York Times piece that offered hope for public financing, we also get a good look at the opposition:
"[Public financing] has never gained much traction in Congress, in part because lawmakers balk at the notion of helping challengers who want their jobs. 'You use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but—I was going to use the term ‘nut’—may be mentally incompetent,' Ms. Feinstein said."

Sen. Feinstein's logic, of course, is a patently dishonest canard, though you've got to give her credit—her lie is an effective one in how it brings up thoughts of taxpayers having to fund the Charles Manson for Congress campaign. But let's get back to reality: Every serious public financing proposal—including the ones that have passed in states like Arizona and Maine—create thresholds to almost totally limit the possibility of "mentally incompetent" people from receiving taxpayer dollars to run a campaign. These thresholds often involve a candidate having to raise a certain number of small dollar contributions from a geographically diverse base in order to qualify for public dollars.



Nonetheless, Feinstein is not the lone Democratic obstacle to public financing. In a May 2006 Roll Call article, the spokesman for now-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,D-Md., said that public financing "is not something he's looked at or focused on extensively." That's Washingtonese for "he will fight against it all the way." And really, should we be surprised? Hoyer is the same lawmaker who brags to reporters about heading up the Democrats’ K Street Project. Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longtime proponent of public financing, may balance Hoyer's position, but she too has recently gone out of her way to make clear that public financing was not something she would use her leadership position to push with the entire Democratic Caucus. "It's her personal opinion," her spokeswoman told Roll Call , "downplaying the significance of the leader's pronouncement" in support of public financing on national television in 2006.



Pelosi's wavering likely comes, in part, from K Street pressure. As highlighted by recent pieces in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal , a new army of Democratic-affiliated corporate lobbyists is salivating at the prospects of passing goodies through the new Congress. These mercenaries know the only way they can serve their clients is to transform massive corporate campaign contributions into legislative favors. A public financing system would effectively cut that scheme off at the knees, meaning K Street is probably already working hard to prevent any strong reforms that target the intersection of money and politics. These are not people who play nice —they play hardball. Remember, just a few months ago Big Business tried to unseat Portland, Oregon's mayor specifically because he championed public financing. The Washington version of that small-town West Coast drama would be even more severe.



What Will Make The Difference?



Because public financing so fundamentally threatens how business is done in Washington, it will only become reality if progressives hit the trifecta of massive grassroots/netroots pressure, support from the batch of new lawmakers who ran on an anti-corruption platform, and an infusion of star power from someone like Obama. And make no mistake about it: the latter two wild cards have no chance of happening without the grassroots component—a narrowly focused, carrot-and-stick campaign to embarrass, cajole and pressure Congress to act.



With so many issues and expectations for the new Congress, can a campaign like this be built? Absolutely. Well-organized groups like Public Campaign and Common Cause already have substantial political infrastructure to work with. Similarly, though the progressive netroots' has lacked a fully developed pan-issue ideology, it has consistently coalesced around the concept of taking political power from elites and redistributing it outside the Beltway. Public financing is, at its heart, the most nonideological way to do just that.



The question, in other words, is not "can" but "will"—will this campaign be built? Let's hope the answer is yes.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: campaign finance, public funding

David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back (Crown, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
most important
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 23, 2006 12:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public financing is the single most important component to creating a congress mostly free from greed and corruption. If we had had public congressional financing in 2000 and later elections it would have been impossible for greed and corruption to take control of the house/senate in 2000 and later. We would also have been spared from creating the illegal Iraq war. Decent governance requires the strangling of greed and corruption and replacing it with an honest democracy that will promote peace not war/dominion/corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insurance Profits Used Against the Victims
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Nov 23, 2006 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The necessary changes in the campaign finance laws will bring about a change in the way Congress approaches the health care system. All that we have gotten from the Republican Congress in the last seven years are the privitazation of Medicare and attempts to corrupt the justice system for people who have been injured by hospitals and doctors. If we can keep the insurance companies from using their 7 trillion a year in income to corrupt the politicians, we have a better chance of passing some real health care reforms. Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.AmericasTunnelVision.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Campaigns are too long; we need single day primary
Posted by: BlueStateBitch on Nov 23, 2006 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about we limit the campaign season to a month?

The media is already feverishly speculating on the possibilities for 2008. This is crazy. It would be a lot cheaper if the campaign season was very short, and people would probably pay more attention and get better information (less time for spin).

In addition, all of the primaries should be held on the same day. No way should Iowa and New Hampshire determine the course of a presidential election.

That's my $0.02.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just campaign financing, it's also pork barrel earmarking
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 23, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most politicians know one thing - if they bring federal dollars to their districts, then a certain fraction of those dollars will end up in their campaign chests as a 'thank you' from their local contractors.

This is how the defense industry works - get a politician to earmark funds for some project, and back that politician all the way - he or she is the insider who keeps the cash flowing. John Murtha, while very notable for calling for troop removal from Iraq, is a classic example of how this works; he has lots of friends in the defense industry. The problem is that most Democrats are just as tied into this system as most Republicans.

The real problem here is the grossly oversized Pentagon budget, but since when has any politician succeeded in cutting back on military spending? It's a matter of 'patriotism'; politicians who attack military spending can be accused of 'putting the nation at risk' (in the classic terminology of Goebbels) and will find that their opponents in the next election cycle are very flush with corporate cash.

Here's one suggestion: this tax year, calculate how much tax you owe the federal government, and then go and pay that full amount to your own state's treasury (they will take your money). Send the reciept to the federal government with a little note saying "No Taxation Without Representation".

The Pentagon views itself as a world apart from democracy. That's the center of the problem. Rumsfeld tried to control the Pentagon; Gates will try to control the Pentagon, but this corporation is independent of it's human components. It's a machine that grinds people up and spits them out, and it's funding should be drastically reduced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

half measures don't work!
Posted by: SteveBreeze on Nov 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Illinois we passed lobby reform 4 years ago in the wake of a corrupt governor. The topic number one in this governor’s election? The perhaps real but none the less credibly alleged corruption in fund raising by the new governor. He won only because his opponent looked no cleaner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corrupt government
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 23, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Sirrota states clearly what is a serious problem for American Representative Democracy, ie, the nexus of money and politics.

I am very uncomfortable, though with his characterization of campaign contributions as legalized bribery. Candidates and parties have legitimate uses for money.

The ability to raise money from a wide variety of sources is a respectable and proper prerequisite for political aspirants seeking office in a political system representative of a free and market oriented economy.

The ability to use the money raised to assist other candidates and parties compatible to a candidate is respectable and proper in any type of popularly based electoral system.

From my experience, the difficulty with our current system of donor oriented campaign financing- outside of outright illegality like that practiced by Abramoff and DeLay- is that the donor base is rather narrow and candidates tend to be sheltered from the concerns of citizens or groups who are not habitual donors. That is to say, our current system has created an echo chamber in which consistent donors voices are heard over and over again.

Nevertheless, the necessity of candidates to attend to fund-raising and the freedom of donors to deny funding to unacceptable candidates provides an essential feed back loop for the current system and assures the candidates' accountability to the donors.

It is hard for me to understand how a publicly financed election system like the one in use in Arizona or in Maine protects the public from demagogic candidates pandering to corporate interests better than the current one.

The popular picture drawn from Maine and Arizona's experiement with public funding is of the crusading candidate, freed from attending banquets with donors, going door to door to meet people and attend their needs. There is howerver no evidence to show that the public funding programs have actually increased candidates' receptivity to public opinion and there is no feedback loop for accountability in the public funding proposals.

Freeing a candidate from the need of actively seeking funding from numerous and politically diverse contributors could have the perverse effect of lowering the candidate's sense of accountability.

This lack of accountability and feed back make me resistant to the proposals for public financing of campaigns. Instead of seeking legal remedies, I think political solutions to this problem would be more effective.

Outside of clear cut bribery and influence peddling a la Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Ney et al, I think feel that the characterization of campaign contributions as legal bribery is unfounded.

Political operations need money for legitimate political purposes and the current privately based financing system provides a feedback loop and accountability that strengthens rather than weakens the legitimacy of government.

Public funding guarantees funding and weakens the feed back loop and accountability.

The current system produces an echo chamber effect that has weakened the representative nature of our democracy.

The prudent use of organized public advocacy, of political activism and targetted fund raising like Emily's list are more dependable reform efforts than adding another bureaucracy that would extend the government's control into another area of political and economic freedom.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corrupt government Posted by: JCR
» RE: Corrupt government Posted by: jmooney
You should only be able to give to one you can vote for.
Posted by: wobblies on Nov 23, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi~
Alan Keyes suggested that idea in the 2000 election. You should not be able to donate money to someone for whom you are not able to vote. Corporate money should be completely banned also.

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grass roots state action!
Posted by: RYancey on Nov 23, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As well as pushing for federal reform we can also get our individual states (i.e. Arizona, etc.) to create public financing laws. I agree that finance reform is the first, and most important, step. The only way to challenge corporate corruption is to remove corporate influence. Also; aren't the airways ours? Why can't we get some kind of functional and free broadcast plan wherein candidates get airtime to intelligently express their positions instead of these ridiculous and demogogic sound bites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grassroots machine
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 23, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Progressive grassroots machine needs some tangible unity issues before it can tackle reform of the US electoral system.

Start with demanding a public holiday for Presidential elections. A bribe? Yes. But it will increase voter turnout and paint any opponent of the idea as anti-commonfolk.

More ideas like this will be needed to divide the Privilege Party into conquerable chunks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Trough
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 23, 2006 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scoundrels, greedy individuals and corrupt practices flow to money like ants to sugar and there is more money to be had in government than anywhere else. Without a high degree of consistent vigilance by an independent press and an informed and concerned electorate it's just about impossible. Sorry to rain on anyone's reform parade, but the problem starts with lazy, uninformed and uninvolved voters. Until that changes, it's just tilting at windmills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never gonna happen...ever
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 24, 2006 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greed and corruption are like baseball and apple pie. Money, especially the dirty kind, will always find its way to politicians.

And why do we have to hear about this Obama character every five minutes?...My original theory was that progressives like people with annoying names. But if that were the case, why don't they mention Paris Hilton nearly as much?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need a start
Posted by: Rshaw on Nov 24, 2006 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We to have an open source campaign for this issue. A group like Common Cause needs to say "we're going to start a campaign in the coming months" around a certain powerful bill. They need to ask for our help in terms of donations and grassroots support. Then they need to ask supporters how they should proceed, and continue in an open source manner involving the grassroots. Then a well financed Grassroots campaign should take lift off with the help of independent media and bloggers. Learn and Build from the Save The Internet Campaign. This is an issue people on both side of the fence can and will get behind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeff Blankfort Quotes:
Posted by: rwa on Nov 25, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Money is very important, but it's the way they approach politicians. AIPAC, for example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the only foreign lobby that isn't required to register as a foreign agent. They hold regional meetings around the country, at which they invite supervisors, mayors, city council people, public officials from the area, to come to these luncheons and dinners, where the speaker will be a US Senator or some very important government official, who will come into town, unknown to the media, with no notice to the media. He or she will make no other speeches, give no press conferences, and will leave. It will be reported in the local Jewish paper, but it will not be reported in the state where the person lives, except perhaps in the Jewish press there. And there's no interest in the media in following up why, for example, Senator Christopher Dodd, when he comes to San Francisco, or Mario Cuomo when he speaks out in Danville, why does he not have a press conference and talk to the media here."

“The Israel Lobby was indomitable before the Christian Zionists were brought in. They were brought in, by the way, by Menachem Begin, who, when he got elected in '78, invited Jerry Falwell to Israel. This was also the time when they started talking about Israel as a strategic asset of the United States because before that, the US/Israel relationship was never questioned because the people who ran Israel, the Labor Party, were basically Democrats, and when Begin was elected, it created a real problem for American Jews because he had been identified as a fascist by people like Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and so on. So they had to find a rationalization for continued support of Israel. And as General Matty Peled, an Israeli general who was a friend of mine, said, this is when they introduced the idea of Israel being an asset, because they had to find a justification for Israel still getting the support from the United States.”

"and (extremely important; Begin gave Falwell a Lear jet as a gift, a jet which allowed Falwell to begin wholesale fundraising efforts which were the beginnings of Christian Zionist power, so it is fair to say that the Israeli right established Christian Zionism)"

You also have something else called blackmail, which the Left never considers as a reason for somebody doing something. But the Anti-Defamation League is a major spying organization, the largest private spying organization in the country.”

The war in Iraq was clearly a war for Israel. The oil companies want stability. They're going to make money. They look at the long run. High prices, low prices, they're going to make money. They control the market. Saddam Hussein would play ball with them. Why the United States would not play ball with him is because the Neo-Cons, which is part of the Lobby, didn't want that. It's interesting. Without the Lobby, and without the orchestrated incubator story, we might not have had an intervention in Kuwait because at the time the Senate was split down the middle, and when the incubator story came out, even Amnesty International believed it. People said, oh these horrible Iraqis, and then there was no debate anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Johnboy414
Posted by: Johnboy414 on Nov 26, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the new Democratic Congressional majority cannot find the collective stomach to take the big money out of politics, once and for all, a cycle or two from now, they will be back on the sidelines and democracy will suffer yet another direct attack from the previous party of congressional majority.

People are sick to death of democracy for the highest bidder at the lowest price. That's not even democracy.

Our job, as members of the unwashed mass, is to hold our representatives feet to the fire until they get it done and--if they don't--to hold them accountable. We have no more important responsibility as participants in the government for and by the people for which so many have given so much.

Follow the money, send the cheesy porkbarrel hawgs packing, regardless of party, family or corporate affiliation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amend the Constitution
Posted by: jmooney on Nov 26, 2006 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree 100 percent in public financing of elections. Somehow we need to break through the mindset that has people realizing we have a broken system but those same people aren't willing to do what's necessary to fix it, i. e., pay for campaigns through general taxation rather than via well-healed corporations and/or heavy weight unions or other well-financed special interests. Some special interests are good things no doubt, but why have a system where we have to barter to be heard by our officials. Let's all of us as American citizens pay for campaigns.

I was at a movie recently, the new Will Ferrell one, and there was a young, "progressive" woman who witheld part of her taxes. She didn't want to pay for war and other negative things, and one of those things she listed was the presidential campaign fund. How wrongheaded is it for a progressive to oppose public financing of presidential campaigns? That's the one thing I do with relish every year, check off the presidential campaign fund. I WANT to pay for the campaigns. But the movie demonstrates how upside down we have things relative to public financing.

Then, again, I think we are missing a pretty key point in this article, and that is that as with the presidential fund, I'd assume that under our current Constititution, as it has been intrepreted, it would have to be a voluntary thing. Basically, if a candidate is willing to limit his or her spending they could get the funds. That still leaves a big loophole for people like Bush (and Kerry) to go through. And you'd still have millionaires like Corzine of New Jersey who finance their campaigns out of pocket. While we applaud rich liberals who do that, even in those cases do we really want to rely on rich liberals as our only hopes for getting relative clean government? I think not.

To be able to limit campaign spending, which is the real answer, we've will have to elect a lot of Democratic presidents (or good government Repubs) to the presidency and make it a litmus test that whomever they appoint to Supreme Court supports limiting campaign spending. Yes, that limits speech to a degree, but it also enhances speech for regular, everyday Americans who don't have a lot of dough and/or don't affiliate with special interests, but who, nevertheless, deserve to be heard as loudly as anyone else regardless of their ability to grease our corrupt campaign system as it now exists.

The other alternative is to amend the Constitution to allow Congress and legislatures to limit campaign spending. Now that would be a bold stroke for the Congressional Democratic leadership to get behind such a movement and really begin a debate in this country about how the big monied interests are in fact reducing the speech of the non-well connected. It is legalized bribery as the article here states. Constitutional amendments often seem like tilting at windmills, but to get Democrat leadership behind such an initiative and to really begin a real debate on this topic, now that would be neat.

Repubs have for years yacked about line-item veto and balanced budget amendments, but the one amendment that would make the most difference toward really good government impetus would be this one. Let Obama raise this issue or some other candidate. Let's tell it like it is. The Big Monied, affluent, well-connected and organized have much more freedom of speech in our political process. Their speech is limiting my speech. Of course we ought to be able to limit spending, and this amendment would allow legislatures and Congress to do that, and surely some progressive legislatures would start the ball rolling if we'd authorize them to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Devolve Power
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 26, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only solution is to lessen the power of the centralised government. They have too much power and its a truism that power corrupts. Eliminate these foreign wars, eliminate these federal gov't programs leaving children behind, eliminate these courts intervening in state and local affairs, and eliminate many jobs at the IRS and replace the tax code with something simpler like a flat sales tax, a VAT, or something that normal people could actually read or understand. If there is power/influence then money/corruption/gangsterism will be involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement