Sam Waterston Pushes Bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is set to propose legislation this week that would create a public election financing system that would keep candidates competitive while, among other things, banning lobbyist money in elections.

"Law & Order" star Sam Waterston, in an interview with the Huffington Post, said the time is ripe.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), will be introducing the Fair Elections Now Act on Wednesday. And they are expected to be supplemented by a coterie of Representatives in the House, according to advocates for the legislation.

Proponents of the legislation say that it would eliminate the predominance of special interests in politics without tilting the playing field against those politicians that chose to take part. They believe it's the right time for an election-financing system overhaul.

For starters, in the White House sits a president who has supported such measures -- first in the Illinois State Senate and then in Congress.

"I think this is a sort of, 'if you build it he will come' situation," Waterston said. "[Obama] does have a lot of things that he has to deal with, but if past is prologue, the likelihood of him supporting this is very strong ... If the Congress were to present this as something they would wanted to do in regulating their own house, it seems to me the odds are really very good that he would be behind it."

Moreover, with a steady stream of scandals related to campaign contributions, and with the financial sector under intense scrutiny for lobbying lawmakers, proponents of the clean elections law believe they can succeed where past efforts have failed.

"How different would our conversation about AIG be if we knew that $10 billion hadn't gone into federal elections from the financial sector over the last twenty years?" asked Waterston. "We might have different opinions, we might like or dislike legislators' ideas about what to do about the crisis, but we wouldn't be wondering if any one of them were on the take or whether their opinion was being colored by who was helping them get elected. It would just change the conversation radically."

Story continues below

advertisement

Asked whether he would like to test drive a public-financing system in a run for office of his own, the famed T.V. actor replied: "Heck no. I want to be the guy who helps people who really know about this."

The bill would provide congressional candidates who choose to participate with a pool of public funds, along with many additional avenues by which to raise cash and buy air time on television.

Under the Fair Elections Now Act proposal, House and Senate candidates could raise a large number of small contributions -- limited to $100 -- from their home states. Public funding for House candidates would kick in once that person collected 1,500 contributions and raised more than $50,000. The candidate would then receive $900,000 in Fair Elections funding: 40 percent for the primary and 60 percent for the general election.

Senate candidates would have to raise contributions -- again limited to $100 -- that came to ten percent of the primary Fair Elections funding in order to qualify. That candidate would then receive $1.25 million plus another $250,000 per congressional district in their state, with the money split 33 percent for the primary and 67 percent for the general election.

The candidates would still be allowed to raise small donations once in the system, again only from within their home state but with every dollar matched by four from the Fair Elections Fund. And when it came to purchasing television time, a candidate in the public system would receive a 20 percent reduction from the lowest broadcast rates. Winning primary candidates would be eligible for media vouchers following their victories.

The goal, those who have crafted the legislation say, is to wean politicians off the traditional reliance on big-time donors while freeing up time for them to actually legislate and/or talk to voters.

"Members complain about how much time they have to spend fundraising," said one official. "Well ,here is a way out for them."

As for the support of both parties in Congress -- integral to any passage of legislation -- the official said that he expected "additional Republican sponsorship in the Senate as well as some in the House."

Comments

[gsteinum]

hopefully legislation would include provisions for free air time.

[labman]

The election has been over for 4 months already candidates need to get out on the stump before they fall behind.
The next election cycle will begin on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in October.
Also if you haven't declared for 2016 you're behind in the polls.

[vippy]

Elections are too long and take too much money. We have to find a way to shorten the election and
only use specific funds, let the politicians run on their merit and educating the pubic along the way.
This is ridiculous. Seems to me that people with more money always win and that is not fair.
Make it even.

[skymuffin]

At last, maybe this will get serious attention!

[kcinci]

Mr. Stein, first generally a good article. Thanks for the information.

Next.... Do you ever proof or have proofed the articles you write? What about other authors on HuffPo?

4th Paragraph: "Proponents of the legislation, including, say that it would eliminate the predominance of special interests in "

12th Paragraph: "Senate candidates would have to raise a contributions..."

13th Paragraph: "again only from to within their home state but..."

Not trying to be petty but it's becoming all too familiar in journalism, both online and (what's left of) traditional print, to see carelessness in writing, spelling and grammar. Makes reading not only difficult but annoying at times. Shouldn't have to stop, read and re-read to divine author's original intent.

[Cogs]

I wish Sam Waterson would work on this without the support of politicians. They have shown little interest in working on behalf of the people they represent. It's always about themselves and their pals.

[Tom Payned]

What would also help a lot, is to shorter the election cycle as they do in England, have a national primary allowing people to vote over the course of a weekend, with absentee ballots accepted.

The National election should be held within 1 month after the conclusion of the primary, and allow a week for people to vote. No campaigning during that week, including third party ads.

Both primary and national election results are not be disclosed until after the last voting booth closes, and exit polls are not allowed to be reported until then as well.

This national voting on only one day, a Tuesday at that, is not very democratic. It's not required in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

[MochasMom]

Or like in Canada... from the election call to election day.... all over in six weeks.

[suburbanmom]

Does this cover campaigning that comes from the parties or other special interest groups?

I seem to remember the Swift boat campaing against Kerry did not come directly from the Bush campaign or the Republican party. It came from an independant group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". This group was organized by a wealthy real estate developer who also donated heavily to the Republican party.

If it limited the candidates, I fear the specail interest groups could run amok.

[steve-oo]

The concept has merit, but before you get all giddy about making the financial playing field level for campaigns, you need to fix the election fraud we have in this country ... Kerry and later Gore both won their elections ... unquestionably and indisputably.

Do yourself a favor and rent the documentary "Uncounted" by pulitzer prize winning film maker David Earnhardt and learn what's REALLY GOING ON in this country at the poles.

You feel as though you're a third world country. How can a small Florida town of 688 registered voters give Bush 4700 votes thats the magic diebold voting machines ... scary ha, just wait and see what else you will learn.

[TheHandyman]

Politicians may "complain" about how much time they have to spend raising money for elections but I suspect they prefer doing that to actually doing the hard work of writting and passing good legislation. Considering the number of contacts they make while raising this money and that these contacts lead to very lucrative jobs when the politician leaves as long as there is an opt out they will opt out. There needs to be complete financing like they have in France and then people who want to work for the People will run for office to do that work rather than just use it as a stepping stone to becoming a lobbyist of a shill for a corporation!

[dididangerlove]

Be really careful before championing this idea. When Arizona implemented Clean Elections, more conservative candidates have taken public funds and won than progressives. The sad thing is, I don't know how many people here even understand that's what has happened.

Please research what has happened here before getting on board with this plan. I thought it sounded like a good idea at the time, too.

[Betian]

This sounded like a good idea until I looked at the numbers...$900,000 dollars. I would want more than hats, pins, and dish soap like TV commercials for that amount. It simply should not take that amount to choose our elected officials. Maybe that's why "we the people" have very little voice left in the process. Could we simply put their past record online and take a look at that?

[Greywolf Borealis]

It may sound like a lot of money, but doesn't even approach the 5.3 Billion dollars spent in the last election. This plan would cost in the neighborhood od half of that. The thing that bothers me more than the cost is the "opt out" stipulation.

[Greywolf Borealis]

A good idea with flaws.
First, if congress writes a law you can bet there will be loop holes. Second, if participation is voluntary, don't bet on a lot of participation. Congress will continue to run to their money men.

[teron678]

+ New EmberOfTruth See Profile I'm a Fan of EmberOfTruth I'm a fan of this user permalink

A corporation cannot vote, therefore a corporation should have absolutely no influence on lawmakers, legislation, or the political process as a whole. All corporations, PACs, Trade and Labor Unions, or Special Interest Groups should be barred from making ANY political contributions.
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­--------
Well the average politician will only have a dime to run on .... over 75% of campaign funds by both Political Party candidates are raise from those groups you mention ...

[Jacqueline3]

Its about time!