Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

Clean Elections Solution Arrives in Congress

By David Donnelly and Gary Kalman, AlterNet. Posted March 21, 2007.


The campaign finance system is spinning out of control, guzzling the money that should go to solving the real issues facing this country.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

More stories by David Donnelly Gary Kalman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"Former President Bill Clinton will drop by a spinning exercise class on Thursday on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and speak briefly about health care and his wife's candidacy to more than 30 women and men wearing spandex, sweat shorts and the like. ...

"The spinners are each paying $2,300 per bike -- the maximum allowable donation to Mrs. Clinton's campaign." -- New York Times, 3/20/0

All in unison now: The whole campaign finance system is spinning out of control.

Candidates for the presidency are sized up by the media for their fundraising ability, not their ideas. To be considered a viable candidate a person will have to prove that he or she can raise $100 million by the end of this year, or be consigned to second tier status.

At the congressional level, members we elect to do the people's business are forced to do their own fundraising business first. Vulnerable Democratic members of the House, for example, were told recently that they should have $1 million in the bank by the time June 30th rolls around, more than a year and a half before their next election. That's an astounding figure -- members of Congress are raising roughly $38,000 per week every week to stay on pace.

The same story can be told about Senate races. In 2002, the average winner spent $5.4 million. Just four years later, in 2006, the average winner spent $9.7 million.

Think about the price we all pay in the lost time members of Congress spend raising money rather than solving the problems facing this country. When Congress could be wrestling with the growing threats to homeownership caused by reckless lenders, they're off courting campaign donations from the banking industry. When Congress could be addressing the serious problem of health care in this country, insurance company lobbyists and pharmaceutical executives are hosting fundraisers for key committee members.

It is an unsustainable system, and one that needs changing as soon as possible.

That's why yesterday's introduction of the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is as timely as it is necessary. Modeled after successful "Clean Elections"-style public financing laws at the state level, the bill would level the playing field and put voters in charge.

The Fair Elections Now Act is a straightforward reform that encourages more participation from ordinary voters. Candidates who agree to strict spending limits and to take no large dollar donations can qualify for public funding by raising a specific number of small contributions -- usually five dollars -- from people in their state. Instead of raising contributions from the wealthiest of the wealthy, Senate candidates would be required to raise small contributions from a massive numbers of people back in their home district. If they're outspent by an opponent or an outside group, they can receive fair fight funds, up to a limit, to respond. Once they've qualified, their fundraising is done, and they can spend the campaign walking, talking, and listening to voters.

Arizona and Maine have seen solid success with similar systems. In Arizona, nine of the eleven statewide officeholders ran and won under a Fair Elections-style system. In Maine, 84 percent of the State Legislature did as well.

"Five years ago today, the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms banning huge soft-money donations to political parties. Earlier this year, we passed lobbying reforms," said Senator Durbin at a press conference. "But the truth is, we can pass all the lobbying and ethics reforms in the world and it won't solve the real problem. Special interest money will always find new loopholes to work its way into campaigns until we change the system fundamentally."

Groups backing this proposal represent an unprecedented reform coalition whose members exceed 60 million Americans. And that's good, and necessary, because this is a big change for incumbent members of Congress. A major campaign is in the works, including petition drives to sign up tens of thousands of citizen co-sponsors, public education efforts through letters to the editor, and setting up scores of in-district meetings with members of Congress.

Similar legislation will be introduced by Reps. John Tierney (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Todd Platts (R-PA) in the House.

At the press conference on the Senate bill, Senator Specter said, "It has been a mystery to me, and I have studied the Constitution to some substantial extent, how money can be equated with speech."

That's exactly right, Senator. Now it's time to level the playing field for candidates and voters alike.

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

See more stories tagged with: elections, campaign finance, fundraising

David Donnelly is National Campaign Director for Public Campaign Action Fund

Gary Kalman is the Democracy Advocate for U.S. PIRG

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:
A step in the right direction
Posted by: spencerh on Mar 21, 2007 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Real solution:

eliminate campaigning and ads. How do you get your agenda out? A special, government-funded candidate web site, TV show, and maybe radio show. Every candidate gets equal time to talk about their agenda, and there are debates between candidates. No traveling the country, no fund raisers, no smear campaigns, nothing. You get your time, you speak about your agenda and issues, you debate. That's it. No more choosing based on celebrity.

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

» First Amendment issue Posted by: brunowe
» RE: First Amendment issue Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: First Amendment issue Posted by: brunowe
» RE: First Amendment issue Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: First Amendment issue Posted by: HeroesAll
Term limits
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Mar 21, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Campaign finance reform is a nice idea, but unrealistic in this day and age. Just as water always flows downhill, money will seep into every crack that is unplugged in politics.

Term limits would do a better job of drying up the flow of money as donors would be less likely to open their wallets so wide if they knew their donations only had a shelf life of a couple of years.

I propose two terms and that's it.

If you are doing a great job then you get elected to the second term. If you want to be a career politician you will have to get yourself elected to a new job after two terms in each job.

Serving in office used to be a duty that citizens endured for a few years and then they went back to their real life and career. You should be called to politics by causes. If politics is your calling, what brings you here?

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

» RE: Term limits Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Term limits Posted by: CriminallySane
How can we reform campaign financing?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 21, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion we must get all private money out of campaigns. If there are first amendment objections we must amend the Constitution further.

Under our present system those reforms are impossible. We're in a Catch-22. We need campaign finance reform so that voters will control the elections. We can't get campaign finance reform until the voters control the elections. We can't beat the corporate establishment that finances both parties until "we the people" control both parties.

Obviously, since the establishment controls borh parties, we can't vote them out of power.

We must have a new strategy. We can use the power of our votes before the electiion to dictate the platforms of both parties. If the majority controls the platforms of both parties we'll win regardless of which party wins. We will be the power that can't be voted out.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director. The Lincoln Initiative.

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

Constitutional Convention
Posted by: willymack on Mar 21, 2007 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its time has come. Get rid of the fatally corrupt Electoral College, institute federal funding (only) for election campaigns, a voting rights act, a fair labor act, a mechanism wherein evil cretins like bush & co. can be tossed out of office by a vote of the people (it would've happened by now if such a law were in place), a balanced budget act, and universal, single-payer health care for all. Did I miss anything?

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

Where is everybody?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 21, 2007 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion campaign financing of both parties is what keeps the corporate establishment in power, why both parties represent the establishment, why both parties only back candidates friendly to the establishment, why we're headed for a unitary executive, and why our votes are worthless. Only ten comments?
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

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

Americans Committing National Suicide-
Posted by: mite on Mar 21, 2007 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Devvy Kidd, April 4, 2002

www.devvy.com/utt_20020410.html

" A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.....

-Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 BC

Truth will set us free- I hope.

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

It will have to be done state by state.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 21, 2007 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has locked up the Supremes indefinitely. If they can find, as they have in the past, that any limits on campaign donations violates the free speech protection of the Bill of Rights, they will strike down federal action.

But states run their own elections. And states can designate the terms. They will not be able to prohibit or prevent private campaign contributions, but they can at least offer an alternative to the best candidates 'that money can buy.'

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

mrs
Posted by: jjdoggie on Mar 22, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be nice to sweep them all out and start at square one, but that is unrealistic and won't happen. But I am heartened by this new proposal for clean elections. As the years have gone on, I have become disheartened and cynical, because some of the best minds never get a chance to help us as our representatives. It is utterly absurd that a person can't run unless he/she has millions of dollars, AND belongs to one of the two major parties. We so need STATESMEN, not politicians, people who want to do good for the country and its people, not stay in power. Yes, I do sound like a pollyanna, but when I read history, our Constitution, I know why this country was founded, and it was a good idea -- we have to join together, not fight each other, and work out solutions to our problems. This bill is a first step to get back to real solutions.

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