- 1
- 2
Dialing For Dollars
Since Arizona passed the Clean Elections Act in 1998, public funding has replaced private contributions as the largest source of financing for statewide races. (Those who ran with private donations went to the usual alternatives, one study showed: lawyers, lobbyists, the insurance and real-estate industries.) Napolitano acknowledges it is no panacea; her grant was buttressed more than eightfold by state party spending that supported the Democratic field up and down the ballot. But she says public funding does much of what it is supposed to do: gives ordinary people a sense of ownership, eliminates the automatic advantages of incumbency and opens the door to a broader field. She recalls that during the primaries in her first gubernatorial race there were four Democrats, four Republicans and an independent. "It was a mosh pit!" she says. "No way some of those people could have raised enough to run without Clean Elections." The Arizona system requires a candidate in the governor's race to qualify by raising $5 donations from 4,200 voters. Napolitano considers that part of the beauty of the system, the $5 parties with chips and dip and a couple dozen people in someone's living room. "This way you spend more time being able to communicate with voters," she says.
We're already paying for campaign financing in a circuitous and counterproductive fashion, through politicians who are spending a big chunk of the people's time meeting with power brokers who don't necessarily share the people's priorities. Everyone knows the quid pro quo: contributions from a group with a high-hat name like the American Association for Self-Interest, followed by votes for the legislation AASI wants. And sometimes, after an official leaves office, he goes on to become—you guessed it!—a lobbyist for AASI himself.
It wasn't always thus. The historian Doris Kearns Goodwin notes that Abraham Lincoln traveled extensively before the 1860 convention and gave speeches of such power that his reputation blossomed. Thousands would listen and hundreds of thousands read the text, reprinted in the newspapers and distributed in pamphlet form. Money was in such short supply that Lincoln's sartorial shabbiness was legendary, but the man sure had convictions. "Little wonder I find it more fun to live in olden times," Goodwin concludes. Americans can't go back. But perhaps they would like to go around the current system, which enables their leaders to declare victory based not on democracy but on dollars.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
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.