THE LAST WORD
Anna Quindlen
Dialing For Dollars
Public financing for election campaigns may not be a panacea, but it's got to be better than what we're doing now.
From time to time during this presidential election run-up, victory has been declared. No votes were counted nor polls cited. It was all about the cash, the moolah, the millions pouring in for one candidate or another, who then pulled ahead or fell behind. The entire process has begun to seem like a game show, "Deal or No Deal," "The Price Is Right." Or, if you're an ordinary voter, "Jeopardy."
OK, I get it: campaign finance reform is the Ambien of issues. But as the totals have mounted, a few million giving way to tens of millions and then tens of millions more, the business of the American election has become, if not necessarily corrupted, at least swamped by big money. A series of scandals involving lobbyists and elected officials have proven to those in the cheap seats what they always suspected: you pay, you play. Bought and paid for? Anyone could be forgiven if they feel that way.
John Rauh does, and that's why he founded an organization called Americans for Campaign Reform and got two former Democratic senators, Bob Kerrey and Bill Bradley, and two Republicans, Alan Simpson and Warren Rudman, to be his point people. Rauh ran for the Senate in 1992, and lost. Fifteen years later he can't keep the revulsion out of his voice when he talks about "dialing for dollars" and working the hors d'oeuvres circuits to raise money from lobbyists and assorted rich people. He says that sitting senators told him a third of each incumbent's time was spent raising money to run again.
"I've never seen a search mechanism for any organization that's worse than that for the leadership of the United States of America," says Rauh, who came from the private sector.
His answer is a voluntary public-funding plan for federal elections. Candidates who qualify through a set number of small donations or signatures would receive a grant or matching funds and would have to limit their spending to the amount an independent commission determined was necessary to mount a credible race. Those who wanted to run with private funding could still do so. But Rauh says research shows that that need not dissuade the publicly funded, even in light of races in which millionaires have paid platinum prices for their own campaigns. Citing three Senate contests last year in which the winner defeated the incumbent with half the money, Rauh says, "You cannot buy an election. You can only lose it if you don't have enough to make an impact."
The resulting campaign is called Just $6, as in per citizen. It sounds like a pass-the-hat approach but is just an imperfect way of saying that public financing doesn't have to break the bank. Naysayers have responded by asking why taxpayers should be forced to underwrite political ambitions. Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona who has run twice with state public funding, says they aren't. The $1.1 million she got in her last race came from a voluntary checkoff on tax forms and a surcharge on penalties and fines, including parking tickets. "If you don't want to pay, park legally," she says with a laugh.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Grayrider @ 12/16/2007 5:00:52 PM
Comment: THREE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES LAUNCH NATIONWIDE NO SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY WEBSITE
On July 4, 1776, fifty-six brave Americans signed the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia declaring their independence from the chains of servitude to the King. In keeping with this "Spirit of '76" three congressional candidates, from two different states and from both major parties, have declared their independence from the chains of special interest money, political action committees, big private donors and lobbyists.
Vying for the opportunity to serve in the 111th Congress, the three candidates have launched a new nationwide website (www.Spirit1776.com) that will revolutionize politics and help grassroots candidates reach out to American voters and raise funds directly from the people.
The three candidates, two republicans and one democrat, are sending a clear message to Washington that candidates serious about making changes and wanting to restore the people's trust in the government need to put the people in their district first by refusing to take money from any special interest groups, political
action committees, big private donors and lobbyists.
Spirit1776.com is a nonpartisan website and its current members are actively seeking other congressional candidates from around the country, from any party, who will also agree not to accept contributions from influential special interest and PAC groups, as well as from power donors.
To be listed on this new national website, congressional candidates must agree to limit the amount of money they will accept from individuals to $76 (in the Spirit of '76). They must also agree to limit the solicitation of contributions to within the geographical boundaries of their respective congressional districts and to the internet.
The three candidates, Morris Guller (D) from NY-20CD, Paul Swiderski (R) from PA-10CD, and John Wallace (R) from NY-20CD, believe that the American people are tired of the influence big money has on federal elected officials and have set out to prove that federal elections can be won based solely on the support of individual American citizens, as was intended by our forefathers.
For more information, please visit www.spirit1776.com.
MEDIA CONTACT IN NEW YORK:
MORRIS GULLER
Email: gullercongress@aol.com
Tel: 845-688-7838
JOHN WALLACE
Email: john@voteforwallace.com
Tel: 518-392-7062
MEDIA CONTACT IN PENNSYLVANIA:
PAUL SWIDERSKI
Email: paul@abetternepa.org
Tel: 570-574-6070
Posted By: cmrced @ 10/24/2007 6:16:42 PM
Comment: The answer to "Why should taxpayers be forced to underwrite political ambitions" is that if "we the people" don't, wealthy individuals and special interest groups will, which of course is what happens now. In truth it's not a matter of being "forced;" it's about "wanting to" and "getting to" provide this impartial funding so that we as voters can take back control of our political process and ensure that public officials are accountable to us instead of whatever private interest group or wealthy individual paid for their last campaign. Besides, what taxpayers save on all the legislative favors we'll no longer get stuck paying for will fund the public financing system many times over. It should be called the "Taxpayer Relief Act."
Posted By: dave404 @ 10/24/2007 4:19:30 PM
Comment: This idea of reforming our political system has been going on for decades now and with each ???reform???, we see less and less turnover in our elected officials and more and more cookie cutter candidates from each political party. In a quest to throw the money lenders from the temple of politics these do-gooders have stomped on free speech rights and rendered our political system more dysfunctional than ever.
Third party candidates, unless they are super rich need not apply ??? even then the rules have been carefully stacked to stop these ???interlopers??? from intruding into our political system, except perhaps as mere sideshows. Any real challenge to the status quo will run afoul of the fact that limits on campaign contributions which each of the major parties to their main source of support, the Christian right, unions, trial lawyers etc. They provide the boots on the ground and candidates are truly beholden to their priorities. There are few alternate routes to money and resources. A few rich donors could allow a dark horse candidate to challenge the status quo (like what Reagan did, Eugene McCarthy against Johnson), but this is no longer tolerated.
The Supreme Court ruling that money does not equal free speech is one of those signature fiascos a??? la Dred Scott. Sure you are free to speak in this country, but money that would allow you to be heard is not part of the equation. Money is the medium though which political speech must pass just as much as the air, only it functions over longer distances.
Public financing of our elected officials is another step in the wrong direction. Who shall make the decisions on which candidates are funded? One thing is certain to happen: major political parties will rest even more comfortably with fewer challenges to their position. Anna Quinland???s rhapsody about Lincoln???s traveling the country delivering speeches from railcars and in the streets has as much applicability today as his style of stove pipe hats. What we need is more diversity of candidates ??? not the current crop running for president. There should be reporting requirements so we know who is funding them. This process of starving the beast has only resulting in politicians continuously searching for their next meal.