Jake Miller
August 20, 2007
On August 14, 2007, the Commonwealth Foundation released a statement declaring the impracticality of campaign finance reform or “clean elections.” If you’re unaware of the topic, much of the local media will soon inform you of its demeanor. Clean elections (or voter-owned elections) is an optional system where a political candidate can rely upon public monies to provide for the funds for his or her campaign, rather than traditional “dialing for dollars,” bundling, or online fundraising.
Several states have successfully passed and implemented Clean Elections – those being Arizona, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Maryland and California are the most recent to consider them.
This debate is important to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as it is listed on the docket for the General Assembly this upcoming session, and you should strongly urge your legislators to support publicly funded gubernatorial races (HB 1497).
In addition, contact your candidate to support caps on campaign contributions (HB 1721).
Money in Pennsylvania Politics is Becoming Absurd
* The 2008 presidential election will undoubtedly eclipse the $1 billion mark.
* Spending on the 2006 gubernatorial race cost more than $70 million dollars.
* The last two US Senate races in Pennsylvania cost more than $40 million dollars.
* The average amount of money one must raise to run for the United States House of Reps is now $1,000,000.
* Even General Assembly elections are quickly approaching the $100,000 plateau.
* Yet The Commonwealth Foundation wants to assure you this is no problem, because “in 2003 General Motors spent $3.43 billion and Proctor & Gamble spent $3.1 billion in advertising.”
How Is Money a Problem, and Where Does It Originate?
* Most of the money raised is spent on repetitively senseless and negative campaign advertisements that leave most voters with a sour taste of democracy.
* Candidates rely upon corporations, special interests, and their political parties for their campaign fuel, not average Americans.
* Special interests who donate often expect kickbacks – such as government contracts or unfair insight on government policy – which can open the candidates up to corruption.
* Incumbents must dedicate their time to fundraising to secure re-election, often at the expense of their elected duty.
* The costs of elections have caused Former House Rep. Bob Edgar (D-Philadelphia) to support voter-owned elections (and is also current Chair of Common Cause) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to sponsor the Fair Elections Act bill this past legislative session.
* Many elected officials have lost touch with their constituents, resulting in items such as the PA Pay Raise debacle.
Won’t Voter-Owned Elections Cost Too Much?
* The average cost to fund elections in Pennsylvania would be $3 per voter, the current going rate, which is a reasonable cost (Public Campaign).
* But it is a cost well worth it, as it makes candidates responsible to their constituents, not special interests.
* Candidates would only be entitled to benefits if they meet an array of criteria, such as obtaining a certain amount of signatures by speaking with voters in their constituency.
* Government spending would be much more reasonable to reign in, as politicians would be less apt to resort to “pork barreling” and “earmarking” that would have otherwise been spent to satisfying campaign donors.
* And if candidates still prefer to raise money the traditional way, they can.
But Isn’t Money Free Speech?
* According to Buckley v. Valeo (1976), money is free speech.
* An odd list of bedfellows opposes Voter-owned elections, because it inhibits their political clout (liberal interests such as the ACLU and AFL-CIO arm-in-arm with conservative interests such as the NRA and Christian Coalition).
* A mere 1% of the population provides 90% of the funds for candidates (Democracy Matters)
* If the act of speaking is free, it is insanity that hearing candidates speak on issues that matter most has a cost.
* Under voter-owned elections, candidates all have equal access because they have the same funds, and, in turn the candidate with the best platform – not the biggest bank account – will win (Mitch Albom).
People Have Become Frustrated in Their Representation
* More than 70% of people are frustrated with the "American duopoly party system." (The Week Magazine)
* Trust in Congress members and the President has reached all-time lows.
* Yet the amount of uncompetitive and uncontested elections has increased steadily.
* In turn, voting has reached all-time lows.
* Voter-owned election provides an easier pathway for common citizens to take the reigns of their government.
I’m Not Concerned with This Policy, I’m Concerned With…
* Voter-owned elections will curb energy lobbyists, and can help end our addiction to fossil fuels.
* Voter-owned elections can end the headlock education lenders have on the system.
* Voter-owned elections allow candidates to give equal consideration to business AND environmental interests.
* Voter-owned elections can provide a pathway to solve our country’s impending medical crises by removing the money contributed by medical lobbyists.
* Voter-owned elections can increase the spending on U.S. troops by removing the wasteful spending on corporations like Halliburton.
* Voter-owned elections can provide the medium needed to truly confront our crumbling infrastructure by removing pork-barrel projects like the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”
If Voter-owned Elections Can Do This, What the Hell Are We Waiting For?
* Many citizens need to be informed of this alternative.
* They also must understand there is a cost to this program, albeit one that is worth it (even to some Libertarians).
* Most politicians are afraid to support voter-owned elections because they have already been successful in the traditional method of being elected.
Several media outlets in Pennsylvania have publicly supported Voter-owned elections, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, Allentown Morning Call, and the Philadelphia Daily News, have proclaimed their support for Voter-owned elections. The same holds true for several of our national representatives, including Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the co-authors of the Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285).
But the biggest push must come from you, the Pennsylvania voter. Call your representatives and ask them to support HB 1497 and HB 1721.
August 20, 2007
On August 14, 2007, the Commonwealth Foundation released a statement declaring the impracticality of campaign finance reform or “clean elections.” If you’re unaware of the topic, much of the local media will soon inform you of its demeanor. Clean elections (or voter-owned elections) is an optional system where a political candidate can rely upon public monies to provide for the funds for his or her campaign, rather than traditional “dialing for dollars,” bundling, or online fundraising.
Several states have successfully passed and implemented Clean Elections – those being Arizona, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Maryland and California are the most recent to consider them.
This debate is important to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as it is listed on the docket for the General Assembly this upcoming session, and you should strongly urge your legislators to support publicly funded gubernatorial races (HB 1497).
In addition, contact your candidate to support caps on campaign contributions (HB 1721).
Money in Pennsylvania Politics is Becoming Absurd
* The 2008 presidential election will undoubtedly eclipse the $1 billion mark.
* Spending on the 2006 gubernatorial race cost more than $70 million dollars.
* The last two US Senate races in Pennsylvania cost more than $40 million dollars.
* The average amount of money one must raise to run for the United States House of Reps is now $1,000,000.
* Even General Assembly elections are quickly approaching the $100,000 plateau.
* Yet The Commonwealth Foundation wants to assure you this is no problem, because “in 2003 General Motors spent $3.43 billion and Proctor & Gamble spent $3.1 billion in advertising.”
How Is Money a Problem, and Where Does It Originate?
* Most of the money raised is spent on repetitively senseless and negative campaign advertisements that leave most voters with a sour taste of democracy.
* Candidates rely upon corporations, special interests, and their political parties for their campaign fuel, not average Americans.
* Special interests who donate often expect kickbacks – such as government contracts or unfair insight on government policy – which can open the candidates up to corruption.
* Incumbents must dedicate their time to fundraising to secure re-election, often at the expense of their elected duty.
* The costs of elections have caused Former House Rep. Bob Edgar (D-Philadelphia) to support voter-owned elections (and is also current Chair of Common Cause) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to sponsor the Fair Elections Act bill this past legislative session.
* Many elected officials have lost touch with their constituents, resulting in items such as the PA Pay Raise debacle.
Won’t Voter-Owned Elections Cost Too Much?
* The average cost to fund elections in Pennsylvania would be $3 per voter, the current going rate, which is a reasonable cost (Public Campaign).
* But it is a cost well worth it, as it makes candidates responsible to their constituents, not special interests.
* Candidates would only be entitled to benefits if they meet an array of criteria, such as obtaining a certain amount of signatures by speaking with voters in their constituency.
* Government spending would be much more reasonable to reign in, as politicians would be less apt to resort to “pork barreling” and “earmarking” that would have otherwise been spent to satisfying campaign donors.
* And if candidates still prefer to raise money the traditional way, they can.
But Isn’t Money Free Speech?
* According to Buckley v. Valeo (1976), money is free speech.
* An odd list of bedfellows opposes Voter-owned elections, because it inhibits their political clout (liberal interests such as the ACLU and AFL-CIO arm-in-arm with conservative interests such as the NRA and Christian Coalition).
* A mere 1% of the population provides 90% of the funds for candidates (Democracy Matters)
* If the act of speaking is free, it is insanity that hearing candidates speak on issues that matter most has a cost.
* Under voter-owned elections, candidates all have equal access because they have the same funds, and, in turn the candidate with the best platform – not the biggest bank account – will win (Mitch Albom).
People Have Become Frustrated in Their Representation
* More than 70% of people are frustrated with the "American duopoly party system." (The Week Magazine)
* Trust in Congress members and the President has reached all-time lows.
* Yet the amount of uncompetitive and uncontested elections has increased steadily.
* In turn, voting has reached all-time lows.
* Voter-owned election provides an easier pathway for common citizens to take the reigns of their government.
I’m Not Concerned with This Policy, I’m Concerned With…
* Voter-owned elections will curb energy lobbyists, and can help end our addiction to fossil fuels.
* Voter-owned elections can end the headlock education lenders have on the system.
* Voter-owned elections allow candidates to give equal consideration to business AND environmental interests.
* Voter-owned elections can provide a pathway to solve our country’s impending medical crises by removing the money contributed by medical lobbyists.
* Voter-owned elections can increase the spending on U.S. troops by removing the wasteful spending on corporations like Halliburton.
* Voter-owned elections can provide the medium needed to truly confront our crumbling infrastructure by removing pork-barrel projects like the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”
If Voter-owned Elections Can Do This, What the Hell Are We Waiting For?
* Many citizens need to be informed of this alternative.
* They also must understand there is a cost to this program, albeit one that is worth it (even to some Libertarians).
* Most politicians are afraid to support voter-owned elections because they have already been successful in the traditional method of being elected.
Several media outlets in Pennsylvania have publicly supported Voter-owned elections, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, Allentown Morning Call, and the Philadelphia Daily News, have proclaimed their support for Voter-owned elections. The same holds true for several of our national representatives, including Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the co-authors of the Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285).
But the biggest push must come from you, the Pennsylvania voter. Call your representatives and ask them to support HB 1497 and HB 1721.
No comments:
Post a Comment