May The Best Fund-Raiser Win?
In recent news reports, US Representative Don Young of Alaska has been accused of securing $10 million to help build a highway offramp in Florida — a project that would increase the value of several thousand acres of land owned by a Michigan builder who in turn raised $40,000 for Mr. Young. But this is just one point on a continuum. A number of congressmen have been indicted, and governors have served time in prison, for abusing their public trust.
Clearly, the way we finance elections is undermining our democracy.
The current campaign finance system forces good people to spend far too much time talking to narrow slices of our society and at the expense of focusing on the nation’s business. Only the wealthiest citizens or special interests can provide the enormous amounts of money required to run for or stay in office. Even the most trusting among us must recognize the potentially corrupting incentives that this creates.
Campaigns have increasingly become a race for money as costs have escalated. The result is that very few people can afford to run, thereby discouraging many good people from seeking elective office.
There is a better way that is embodied in the Senate Fair Elections Now Act recently introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter. Representative John Tierney of Massachusetts, along with Representatives Raul Grijalva and Todd Platts, introduced companion legislation in the House.
Under this bipartisan proposal, candidates raise a large number of small donations to show their credibility with the public and then qualify for a set amount of public money for their campaigns. The legislation is modeled after clean-election laws in seven states, including Arizona and Maine, where the systems have been running well for four election cycles. (Massachusetts had a similar law, but it was repealed.)
We ought not to be electing the best fund-raisers. More good people, under this legislation, could seek office by doing the hard work of connecting with thousands of voters, rather than raising money from just those who can write big checks. One strength of the proposal is that a candidate must demonstrate public support in order to qualify for public money.
Over the years, I have given large sums of money to elect candidates of competence and compassion of both parties. Ironically, I designated my funds to those who would end the ability of people like me to give large contributions to political parties. My own special interest is to get special-interest money out of the political process. The influence of that money indirectly costs taxpayers far more than the costs of liberating the electoral process from the special-interest lobbyists.
Just because I’ve been in a position to contribute doesn’t mean I should have more say in who gets elected. Under the Fair Elections Now Act, everyone will have the same ability to finance elections by making a $5 qualifying contribution to help a candidate receive public funding.
Thomas Jefferson warned future generations that economic interests could overwhelm the political process. Sadly, the number of elected officials accused or convicted of abusing their public trust in recent times has given credence to his concerns.
Fair elections would restore confidence in the system and tell all Americans they are equal participants in our democracy.
Arnold Hiatt, former CEO of Stride Ride, is chairman of the Stride Rite Foundation.
© 2007 The Boston Globe
I wish I could remember where I read this: In a true functioning Democracy wealth would not give one access to public office and public office would not give one access to wealth.
Seems to be truer today than at any time since the late 1800’s Robber Baron era.
The 2008 presidential campaigns started right after the 2006 mid-term elections, assuring that only candidates who could raise enough corporate money to sustain a 2 year campaign have a chance to win. The already strained US treasury will be completely looted when the winner uses taxpayer money to pay back all of those contributors.
This also assures that the US will not only have the best congress that money can buy, also the best president that money can buy.
Or we can vote for Dr. Ron Paul, the only candidate who’s still corporate “clean” after more than 20 years in Congress. Did you know he holds the record for “1″ votes in the House? As in, 535-1? Including NO on the illegal Iraq invasion, NO on the Patriot Act, and no on virtually every earmark and slice of pork penciled in.
Why not an honest, forthright, strong, compassionate, libertarian OBGY/N as President? There’s a reason the neocrazies and their corporate leash-owners hate Dr. Paul, but love HRC and BO…
Ron Paul is a reactionary idiot and Libertarians are worse than Republicans–they want even less regulation and taxation of corporations than the Republicans (and Democrats).
One purchases public office these days.
CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS NOW! And don’t give me that Public Financing nonsense.
We need to do away with the absurd notion that corporations are people, entitled to civil rights, and entitled to participate in democracy like real people. Corporations should manufacture their widgets, period.
This act is very much needed in order to help restore democracy.
Of course wealth enjoys many ways of perverting democracy. Democracy is undermined by:-
* Politicians beholden to the wealthy lobbyists and campaign donors.
* Politicians having to obey the wealthy media owners for good publicity.
* Politician’s investments and connections with the wealthy bring sweetheart
deals whereby those investments can be made to prosper in return
for voting the right way on certain issues.
* Media barons influencing public opinion using distorted media coverage, and
politicians having to shift ground to that.
* Wealth being a pre-requisite to achieving justice through the
courts. Justice that needs to be bought means no justice for
the poor, which of course is not justice at all.
In short, democracy (being one man = 1 vote) is undermined by money by means of the five mechanisms outlined above. If you were to ever design a new system of government, you would have to find ways to limit the ways in which money can pervert justice. One obvious way would be to elect parlimentarians by lottery or lotto, because that way would not easily be perverted by money and greed.
Here’s a dream team:
Robert Redford/Tim Robbins on the Green Party ticket with Ralph Nader as Attorney General, Kucinich for Peace Department, Gravel for Democracy Department, Susan Sarandon for Department of Woman’s Affairs, Harry Belafonte for FCC.
Not sure if any of you have seen Michael Moore’s TV series “The Awful Truth” but there is one hilarious episode where he sends a real pimp to Capital Hill to pimp the “Capitol Ho’s” er Senators and Congressmen who have sold their souls to K Street. Highly recommend it and you can watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/376h85
The choices in 2008 will be Republican corporate candidate A and Democratic corporate candidate B.
And, unfortunately, the myth of democracy in America will be perpetuated.
“In a true functioning Democracy wealth would not give one access to public office and public office would not give one access to wealth.”
Partly because in a true functioning democracy, people wold value other things more than they value wealth.