|
|
|---|
|
VERMONT'S GREAT NEW CAMPAIGN LAW Edited by DAVID W. DIEHL, from the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer, 5/5/00 by Marty Jezer©2000 . Some candidates like fund-raising and are good at it. But accomplished fund-raisers don't necessarily make good public servants. That's why what is happening in Vermont right now is exciting and important. Candidates for Governor (and for the other statewide offices) are quietly going to their core constituents and asking them for small ``Qualifying Contributions'' (or ``QCs'') of $50 or less. The goal, in the race for Governor, is to collect $35,000 from at lest 1,500 registered Vermont voters. Candidates for Governor who can prove they have popular support, will from now on in, be competing against one another on a financially level playing field. The candidates who can raise that money are then eligible for full public financing for the November election. There is one catch, however: candidates who raise these ``Qualifying Contributions'' and who choose the option of public financing cannot raise or spend any other money from private contributors. That means no more fund-raising from PACs, special interests, corporations, labor unions, rich people, poor people, out of state donors; no five thousand dollar a plate dinners (and no one dollar a serving spaghetti suppers) no fund-appeal letters, no dunning phone calls; no additional fund-raising whatsoever. Candidates who pass the qualifying threshold-and thus prove that they have substantial popular support rather than, as in most other states, the ability to raise large amounts of money¾will receive $300,000 to spend during the general election (less the money they raised and spent getting the ``Qualifying Contributions'') Governor Dean, because he has the benefit of incumbency and is in the news simply by being Governor, will only get to spent $265,000.
|
For constitutional
reasons, public
financing is voluntary. Candidates can reject public financing
(the ``clean
money option'') and still go out, as they've done all along, and
raise
money from the wealthy, PACs and special interest lobbies. But
under the
new Vermont law, there are caps on what they can collect from any
single
source and, as with the clean money candidates, a limit on what
they can
spend for campaigning.
The public financing aspect of the Clean Money reform passes constitutional muster. The parts of the law that limit contributions and expenditures for candidates who don't take public money are under legal challenge, as is the clause that counts independent expenditures as a candidate expenditure. Regardless of the outcome
of the
court's decision, candidates for Governor who can prove that they
have
popular support, will, from now on in, be competing
Three candidates are known to be raising ``QCs'' for public financing in the race for Governor. Howard Dean is sure to qualify with the grassroots backing of the Democratic Party. Progressive Anthony Pollina is also a likely qualifier. Pollina, who in 1984 ran for Congress as a Democrat and lost to Jim Jeffords, is a founder of Rural Vermont and a well known organizer for VPIRG on agricultural, health care, and environmental issues. He has a track record and a core constituency. The Republicans have a primary contest. One candidate, William Meub, a Rutland lawyer, is raising ``QCs'' and will, if he wins the primary, run in the general election with clean money. His opponent, Ruth Dwyer, is rejecting the clean money option and will be raising money from private sources. Right-wingers have a good fund-raising apparatus and she'll not lack for money. This year's Vermont Governor's race is a beacon into the future. Arizona, Maine and Massachusetts also have new clean money election laws and many other states are moving toward it. Get big money our of politics. Level the playing field so qualified candidates can compete fairly. Lift the burden of fund-raising that discourages so many otherwise qualified candidates from running for public office. Candidates should be elected on merit, not on their ability to raise money. Legislation should be supported on the basis of public need, and not, as it so often is, custom-crafted to meet the demands of special interests as pay-back for their campaign contributions. (Marty Jezer is a free-lance writer from Brattleboro,Vt. and welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net.) |
|
BY DAVIDW. DIEHL, President, San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections The level of cynicism about politics
amongst the
electorate and those who have given up voting entirely, certainly
has not
been exaggerated. But the neat part is just when
they
|
express their utter disgust with the
present
state of political affairs you get to surprise them with a
SOLUTION.
One thing I did learn, we need to have more audio-visual props. The more the better. Story boards showing local special interest campaign contributions and how our local pols returned the favor would be a big help. A big hit was our booth. With its large
banner
and supporting signs in Spanish, Vietnamese and English. But we
need more
banners, such as PUBLIC FUNDING FOR PUBLIC ELECTIONS, or END
POLITICAL
CORRUPTION, anything to explain quickly what we are all about.
These banners
cost about $50 for a 2x6'. So look in your wallets or purses and
lets have
some bucks for the cause. Whatever you give we'll match.
Honest.(Sounds
like more fund-raising)
|
|
Alliance Member's Meetings,Our organization meets the first Saturday of every month at 10:00 AM. We meet at the Santa Clara Recreation Center. It is located at 1008 Santa Clara Place. (Heading South on Mission Blvd., turn left at Santa Clara and continue straight ahead to the Recreation Center.) |
|
By far, Earth Day was the most productive. Upwards of a thousand brochures were given out, including a new one |
entitled ``Why
Environmentalists
should care about San Diego Campaign Finance Reform."
Volunteers included Mary & George Fujimoto, Dick Brown, Cathy O'Leary, Glenn Ierley, Joy Leibbrandt, David Diehl, and Cliff and Pat McReynolds. In addition to distributing materials we collected over 300 signatures on our petitions to keep the $250 political contribution limit in force for San Diego as well as on our request to the City Council to place the San Diego Clean Elections Act on the November 2000 ballot. |
|
Aiming High: The Case for Full Public Funding of Public Elections. Edited by David Diehl, from original published by Public Campaign (publicampaign.org) INTRODUCTION Summary of Part 1: True Democracy True democracy sets high standards; it aspires to the principles of political equality (``one person, one vote'') and public accountability ( ``government of, by, and for the people''). From this standpoint, all campaign finance systems that rely on private money to finance candidates' campaigns contain a fatal flaw, even those systems that combine public financing and private contributions. If money is a critical ingredient in elections, people with more money will have a distinct advantage and people with less will have a distinct disadvantage. This applies to running for public office, supporting others who are running for public office, and gaining access to those who have been elected to public office. Part 2: What is Full Public Financing or ``Clean Money Campaign Reform''? Clean Money Campaign Reform is a package of measures, the centerpiece of which is the option of full public financing of campaign elections. Candidates who choose to run under the Clean Money system agree to reject campaign contributions from any source (nor can they use any of their own money). |
Candidates qualify for
Clean Money
by demonstrating broad public support by collecting a set number
of $5
``Qualifying Contributions.
Clean Money Campaign Reform builds a financially level playing field on which all candidates can compete fairly, and it maintains this level field. Clean Money candidates who are outspent by privately financed opponents or targeted buy independent expenditures are entitled to a limited amount of matching funds to make sure the race remains competitive. Clean Money Campaign Reform also includes a ban on soft money; mandates free and discounted television and radio advertising (for federal candidates); requires candidates to participate in debates; and strengthens the enforcement of campaign laws. Candidates choose to be part of the Clean Money system. This is important because as a voluntary system, it meets the constitutional guidelines set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. CONCLUSION: AIMING HIGH Henry David Thoreau once said that human beings usually hit what they aim for and therefore they would do well to aim high. So too, with campaign finance reform. We must not fail to at least aim for a system that is as fair and democratic as we can make it. What is at stake here is not just a matter of ``good government'' for its own sake, but a matter of the fundamental rights of citizens within a political democracy. When people's rights to an equal vote, equal representation, and an equal opportunity to run for and win public office are denied or abridged, the quality of our democracy is diminished and government becomes an instrument of discrimination and abuse.
|