I am not a big fan of ballot initiatives, but California has one that we should all support. The California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006 (.pdf) would, if passed, give a lot of momentum to election reform nationwide. Features of the Act:
— Public funding for candidates who agree not to take private money for their campaigns. To qualify for the funds, candidates must meet certain eligibility requirements including collecting a set number of $5 contributions. Initial grants and matching funds allow “clean” candidates to compete equally with privately funded candidates.
— Contribution limits that apply across the board to corporations, unions, and individuals: no more than $500 per election cycle to individual legislative candidates, $1,000 for statewide offices, and $1,000 to so-called independent expenditure committees.
— Aggregate total limits of $15,000 per year per donor to all candidates and committees that seek to influence the election of candidates.
— A ban on contributions to candidates by lobbyists and state contractors.
— Limits on contributions to ballot measures. Corporate treasuries will only be able to spend $10,000. Additional contributions from both unions and corporations on initiatives must be made through political action committees.
— Extensive public disclosure requirements.
— Strong enforcement provisions, including removing those who cheat the system from office.
— Funding will not come from individual taxpayers or the state’s general fund. It will come through an increase in the corporate tax of 20 cents for every $100 of profit or 0.2%. This would restore the corporate tax rate to a figure lower than it was from 1980 to 1996.
If you want to see truly progressive politics, this is the way to get it done. Bloggers can help offset the corporate media message, but only this type of election reform can offset the power of corporations and lobbyists to dominate our nation’s capital and our statehouses.
Don’t expect too many Dems to openly support the Act though. They got elected in the current system, and they have already proven to themselves that they can win in that system.
I’d like to see electoral reform be a MAJOR lefty blog push after the election.
I am happy to see that California has it on their ballot now. While we cannot expect any action on this BEFORE the 2006 elections, perhaps Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy and some of our more progressive representatives will be willing to stand up after the elections.
Honestly I’d like to see a page or separate left blog area where we can hash out what our priorities are going to be AFTER the elections so we can be ready to lead on the top half dozen or so.
This area would also serve as to which dino’s we want to “retire” for the 2008 elections.
I’m a Californian, and I not only signed the petition for that sucker, I stood in front of stores on Saturdays and solicited signatures. It’s actually not that hard–if you explain that you’re a teacher donating your Saturday to do this, people’s faces brighten up and they sign whatever you ask them to sign. People like teachers in general, even if they don’t pay us very much. Maybe they feel sorry for us?!?
I agree, California’s ballot initiatives, which are part of its history as a Populist state that wanted to give law-making power directly to the people, has a mixed history at best (Prop 13 ruined our schools, for example). But the Stem Cell Initiative made California the world’s leader in funding stem cell research OVERNIGHT, and we have another initiative on the ballot that would push the American automobile market towards being more “green”.
“I’m a Californian, and I not only signed the petition for that sucker, I stood in front of stores on Saturdays and solicited signatures.”
mwac, thanks for doing that.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Eh, it keeps me out of trouble. Besides, some of my students and their parents saw me, and it sets a good example for them.
I’m a big fan of the public funding of elections too. I support candidates who support it and say they’ll fight for it once elected to office.
But I’ve also read of how the public funding of elections tends to favor a well known incumbent who has been in the seat for many years. As the public funding of elections frees up time for candidates to go out and pound the pavement and meet actual real live people, that still costs lots of money. I think that term limits and the public funding of elections must go hand in hand for just that reason. If an elected official knew s/he only had three terms to get shit done, maybe they would? Instead, we have 20 and 30 year incumbents sitting around getting fat and voting for pay raises without a care in the world. Living in PA with the fuckwads in the General Assembly has really pissed me off as of late.
“I’ve also read of how the public funding of elections tends to favor a well known incumbent who has been in the seat for many years. As the public funding of elections frees up time for candidates to go out and pound the pavement and meet actual real live people, that still costs lots of money. I think that term limits and the public funding of elections must go hand in hand for just that reason.”
No worries. California (the state in question) already has term limits. The limits have caused such a roiling in the California legislature that no one elected official stays an incumbent for very long.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Some history:
A.B. 583, a clean money measure sponsored by state Assemblywoman Lori Hancock, was stalled in May in the 5-member Senate Elections Committee, Common Cause reports, because one senator failed to appear: Gloria Romero (D – Los Angeles, Senate Majority Leader). The League of Women Voters reported that Senator Romero chose instead to attend a University of California Regents’ meeting.
When the initiative, introduced in January by the CNA (California Nurses Association), obtained enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, Assemblywoman Hancock withdrew her bill.
While I could find the text to the most recently marked up version of A.B. 583, unfortunately, there is only a summary available on the website for the CNA initiative. I finally found the 50+ pages of text of the initiative here via the California Attorney General.
Different approaches in systems impact third party candidates. The League of Women Voters supported the Hancock bill but took no position on the CNA petition. I have yet to see a detailed comparison of the two.
BTW, the Commonwealth Club of California has a “Voices of Reform Project” website with several links to more on campaign financing.