SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
After election day, following the most expensive campaign in U.S. history, it will be payback time. Our president -- whether Kerry or Bush -- will have more than $300 million to return to the big-money donors who funded his campaign. And pay back he will, dispensing favors to wealthy corporations and special interests.
Giveaways to big-money, special-interest donors are way of life in Washington. The system encourages them. Candidates need money to run for office. Special interests with special requests are the biggest source of campaign contributions.
The story is the same in Sacramento. For example, utility industry donations greased the passage of electricity deregulation, burdening Californians with one of the most expensive policy mistakes in state history.
It may seem that there is no hope for change. But there is a solution -- a proven, tested system that prevents special interests from buying our democracy. It is already working in Arizona and Maine. On Tuesday, voters in Berkeley can bring it to California as well. It is called the clean-elections system.
This system provides a limited amount of public funding to candidates who agree not to accept private money and not to use their own money in their campaigns. Candidates qualify for participation by collecting a large number of $5 contributions from voters in the district they seek to represent.
Candidates running "clean" wash their hands of donor funds and donor favors. While campaigning, they are free to address constituents' concerns, rather then begging for strings-attached funds at the special-interest trough. Once elected, they can be responsive to voters, not beholden to donors.
Maine voters passed the clean-elections system in 1996. By 2002, a majority of state legislators were elected running "clean." Maine became the first state in the country to adopt universal health care, which had been blocked for years by the health-insurance industry.
The clean-elections system also increases political participation, bringing in new candidates and new voters. Arizona first implemented clean elections in 2000. From 1998 to 2002, the number of minority candidates increased substantially, and voter turnout increased more than 20 percent, according to the Arizona Clean Elections Institute.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is the first governor in U.S. history elected without private funding. She says that Arizona's clean-elections system is "the difference between being able to go out and spend your time talking with voters ... as opposed to being on the phone selling tickets to a $250 a plate fund-raiser."
Local campaign costs are also climbing, limiting who can consider running for office. According to official election data, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom spent more than $3 million on his campaign. Even in Berkeley, Mayor Tom Bates and his opponent spent a combined $430,000.
On Tuesday, Berkeley voters have a chance to set an example for California and the nation. Measure H would make Berkeley the first city in the United States to adopt the clean-elections system already tested and proven in Arizona and Maine.
Berkeley was the first city to implement curbside recycling and the first to divest from South Africa. In reforming our broken election system, Berkeley is once again leading the way. Berkeley voters can help make history Tuesday by voting "yes" on Measure H.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
After election day, following the most expensive campaign in U.S. history, it will be payback time. Our president -- whether Kerry or Bush -- will have more than $300 million to return to the big-money donors who funded his campaign. And pay back he will, dispensing favors to wealthy corporations and special interests.
Giveaways to big-money, special-interest donors are way of life in Washington. The system encourages them. Candidates need money to run for office. Special interests with special requests are the biggest source of campaign contributions.
The story is the same in Sacramento. For example, utility industry donations greased the passage of electricity deregulation, burdening Californians with one of the most expensive policy mistakes in state history.
It may seem that there is no hope for change. But there is a solution -- a proven, tested system that prevents special interests from buying our democracy. It is already working in Arizona and Maine. On Tuesday, voters in Berkeley can bring it to California as well. It is called the clean-elections system.
This system provides a limited amount of public funding to candidates who agree not to accept private money and not to use their own money in their campaigns. Candidates qualify for participation by collecting a large number of $5 contributions from voters in the district they seek to represent.
Candidates running "clean" wash their hands of donor funds and donor favors. While campaigning, they are free to address constituents' concerns, rather then begging for strings-attached funds at the special-interest trough. Once elected, they can be responsive to voters, not beholden to donors.
Maine voters passed the clean-elections system in 1996. By 2002, a majority of state legislators were elected running "clean." Maine became the first state in the country to adopt universal health care, which had been blocked for years by the health-insurance industry.
The clean-elections system also increases political participation, bringing in new candidates and new voters. Arizona first implemented clean elections in 2000. From 1998 to 2002, the number of minority candidates increased substantially, and voter turnout increased more than 20 percent, according to the Arizona Clean Elections Institute.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is the first governor in U.S. history elected without private funding. She says that Arizona's clean-elections system is "the difference between being able to go out and spend your time talking with voters ... as opposed to being on the phone selling tickets to a $250 a plate fund-raiser."
Local campaign costs are also climbing, limiting who can consider running for office. According to official election data, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom spent more than $3 million on his campaign. Even in Berkeley, Mayor Tom Bates and his opponent spent a combined $430,000.
On Tuesday, Berkeley voters have a chance to set an example for California and the nation. Measure H would make Berkeley the first city in the United States to adopt the clean-elections system already tested and proven in Arizona and Maine.
Berkeley was the first city to implement curbside recycling and the first to divest from South Africa. In reforming our broken election system, Berkeley is once again leading the way. Berkeley voters can help make history Tuesday by voting "yes" on Measure H.
After election day, following the most expensive campaign in U.S. history, it will be payback time. Our president -- whether Kerry or Bush -- will have more than $300 million to return to the big-money donors who funded his campaign. And pay back he will, dispensing favors to wealthy corporations and special interests.
Giveaways to big-money, special-interest donors are way of life in Washington. The system encourages them. Candidates need money to run for office. Special interests with special requests are the biggest source of campaign contributions.
The story is the same in Sacramento. For example, utility industry donations greased the passage of electricity deregulation, burdening Californians with one of the most expensive policy mistakes in state history.
It may seem that there is no hope for change. But there is a solution -- a proven, tested system that prevents special interests from buying our democracy. It is already working in Arizona and Maine. On Tuesday, voters in Berkeley can bring it to California as well. It is called the clean-elections system.
This system provides a limited amount of public funding to candidates who agree not to accept private money and not to use their own money in their campaigns. Candidates qualify for participation by collecting a large number of $5 contributions from voters in the district they seek to represent.
Candidates running "clean" wash their hands of donor funds and donor favors. While campaigning, they are free to address constituents' concerns, rather then begging for strings-attached funds at the special-interest trough. Once elected, they can be responsive to voters, not beholden to donors.
Maine voters passed the clean-elections system in 1996. By 2002, a majority of state legislators were elected running "clean." Maine became the first state in the country to adopt universal health care, which had been blocked for years by the health-insurance industry.
The clean-elections system also increases political participation, bringing in new candidates and new voters. Arizona first implemented clean elections in 2000. From 1998 to 2002, the number of minority candidates increased substantially, and voter turnout increased more than 20 percent, according to the Arizona Clean Elections Institute.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is the first governor in U.S. history elected without private funding. She says that Arizona's clean-elections system is "the difference between being able to go out and spend your time talking with voters ... as opposed to being on the phone selling tickets to a $250 a plate fund-raiser."
Local campaign costs are also climbing, limiting who can consider running for office. According to official election data, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom spent more than $3 million on his campaign. Even in Berkeley, Mayor Tom Bates and his opponent spent a combined $430,000.
On Tuesday, Berkeley voters have a chance to set an example for California and the nation. Measure H would make Berkeley the first city in the United States to adopt the clean-elections system already tested and proven in Arizona and Maine.
Berkeley was the first city to implement curbside recycling and the first to divest from South Africa. In reforming our broken election system, Berkeley is once again leading the way. Berkeley voters can help make history Tuesday by voting "yes" on Measure H.