More

Good-Government Groups Spending Big Money On Fair-Elections Push

First Posted: 07/08/10 12:58 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:00 PM ET

Fair Elections Now Act

In a push to implement a publicly-financed election system and curb moneyed interests in politics, a pair of good-government groups is launching a television ad campaign with a noteworthy price tag.

Common Cause and Public Campaign, two organizations known for exposing the murkier influences on legislative and electoral processes, are staking $8 million to try and burnish Congress with the willpower to pass the Fair Elections Now Act. And they're willing to spend as much as $15 million on their campaign-season gambit.

"We'll draw it out until we win," said David Donnelly, the campaign manager for the Campaign for Fair Elections. "We will continue the advertising, continue the grassroots organizing, continue the targeting and creative action.

"This is a matter that members of Congress need to deal with in their own elections, and if they see the benefit both on policy grounds as well as political grounds, then they'll do it," Donnelly said. "That's really the debate we're having."

The ads are slated to air on local stations in three major cities -- Seattle, Denver and Tallahassee -- as well as on national cable. It cites two of the most widely lamented political crises, the Wall Street bailout and the Gulf oil spill, to shape a compelling argument that special interests have free reign in Washington.

The groups' targets are almost entirely House Democrats, none of whom are currently co-sponsors of the public financing bill: Allen Boyd of Florida; Ed Perlmutter and Diana DeGette of Colorado; and Washington Reps. Brian Baird , Rick Larsen, Jay Inslee, and Norm Dicks. The only Republican in the ad's crosshairs is Rep. Dave Reichert, also of Washington.

On a broader level, however, the ads reflect the evolving tactics that public-financing advocates are applying to the legislative process -- namely, a more aggressive approach. Coalition-building and issue advocacy have given way to a formal political campaign. Already the groups have personnel and organizations working in 24 states to channel the measure's popular support into congressional action. The groups are working closely with first-time candidates as well as incumbents. In addition, and with some levity, they been dispatching actors dressed as founding fathers to confront lawmakers about the fundamentally anti-American spirit of special-interest fundraising.

Whether the political will is there to marshal is an open question. As it stands, there are 157 House and 21 Senate cosponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would give candidates $4 of public financing for every dollar raised through contributions of $100 or less.

As Common Cause President Bob Edgar notes, the groups have both private and public commitments from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bring the bill to the floor. In the Senate, the second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is a lead sponsor.

"[He] believes that a very strong House vote will give momentum for the Senators to come and step forward on this bill," Edgar said of Durbin.

In President Obama, the groups have another champion of true campaign finance reform; that is, reform not limited to disclosure. But while Donnelly said the White House was essentially irrelevant to their efforts -- "It'd be great to have them, but I don't think we need them" -- Edgar made it clear he wanted Obama to step up his involvement.

"We'd like to really challenge the White House to come out strong on the reform issue," he said. "We think it's in their best interest to do it and do it aggressively. It's been a hard message; the President has been bumping up against the oil spill and economic issues and jobs issues and other things, but we think the President is making a big mistake if he doesn't come out with a strong reform push."

The money for the campaign, it should be noted, is coming from a host of sources, including foundations and individuals fed up with the fundraising process. Donnelly listed, among others, Arnold Hiatt, the former CEO of Stride Rite Shoes.

Should the legislation linger in limbo, Donnelly pledged that action, not just television advertisements, would continue through the November election.

"We actually have in hand or pledges that make us believe that $8 million is the minimum we will spend this year, and we may spend as high as $15 million," said Edgar.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 449
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
PharmaCan 10:50 AM on 07/08/2010
So, if I can convince 15,000 to each give me $100, for a total of $1.5Million, the government will kick in another $60,000. Meanwhile, John Boehner is raising on average $111,000 PER DAY, 365 days per year.

This legislation is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. It does absolutely nothing to address the corruption in Washington!

I don't know what the solution is to a very complex  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
05:55 PM on 07/09/2010
Fair Elections are the path for the future. But right now, we have a more immediate threat — the power of misrepresentation, obfuscation, and distraction and the potential impact of the Republican spin machine in the election this November.

The stage is set and the lines are drawn for this November when the siege of the U.S. Congress will conclude in the battle for America. Under cover of the darkness of their deception, the Republican Party, backed by their corporate overlords, will attempt to unleash hell on the Democratic Party and the American middle class. The deployment of their arsenal of lies, half-truths and distortions began months ago, and has already carried a staggering payload of misunderstanding and fear. Now, as we march toward the election, their generals are marshalling the troops, and their foot soldiers, ignorant and enthusiastic, are poised for victory.

Democrats in the Senate need to take bold action, and Democrat voters across the nation need to help stir up the party faithful and fill the polls: http://www.thinkersjam.com/rise-and-fight-the-enemies-of-freedom-the-republicans/
11:34 PM on 07/08/2010
Money is very important for election campaign because election was run by money tospend adverting,buy the clothes,and other process.Government limit money for election is fair for the party;moreover,candidates get money from cosponsor just 100$ to 500$.It is not big effect when they win election.However,in Cambodia during the election campaign, the government not limit money is the opportunity for Cambodian People Party and take $million from business so when they win ,they allow their group take public resources to get richer and richer don't care poor people.They allow their business collect money for next election campaign.They practice generation sell their own country.For my suggestion if government limit money for election campaign,it is fair for opposite parties or small parties and get sponsor from their members with small amounts that is no problems when they win election.
11:32 PM on 07/08/2010
Money is very important for election campaign because election was run by money tospend adverting,buy the clothes,and other process.Government limit money for election is fair for the party;moreover,candidates get money from cosponsor just 100$ to 500$.It is not big effect when they win election.However,in Cambodia during the election campaign, the government not limit money is the opportunity for Cambodian People Party and take $million from business so when they win ,they allow their group take public resources to get richer and richer don't care poor people.They allow their business collect money for next election campaign.They practice generation sell their own country.For my suggestion if government limit money for election campaign,it is fair for opposite parties or small parties and get sponsor from their members with small amounts that is no problems when they win election.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
11:15 PM on 07/08/2010
Big Money will continue to control our government unless and until we succeed with campaign finance reform. Congress no longer serves The People: http://www.thinkersjam.com/who-is-congress-working-for/. We need public campaign finance, preferential voting, term limits and a welded seal on the revolving door. If you're not supporting Fair Elections, then you're helping to maintain the corruption that has captured our government. Regardless of party affiliation, Americans from both sides need to join forces in restoring a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

There is reason for hope, and there's actually a growing contingent in Congress supporting the Fair Elections Now Act. Check out this recent article at The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/blog/ending-pay-play-politics. The bill now has 20 co-sponsors in the Senate, 15 of whom joined in since the Citizens United decision. We just need to get the word out there. There's no reason that this, and the constitutional amendment to restrict the SCOTUS from more corporations-are-people-too decisions, can't become real bipartisan efforts on the part of The People. Are you in support of Free Speech for People? http://freespeechforpeople.org/
10:23 AM on 07/09/2010
The biggest obstacle to fair elections is not campaign financing, but gerrymandering. Computer-generated congressional districts for both state and national representatives ensure the status quo. Take a look at this map of the Illinois 4th Congressional District: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illinois_District_4_2004.png.

The Senate, of course, is a different matter. Two big obstacles to reform are the Roberts Supreme Court and the fact that the current system works well for most incumbents.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
11:29 AM on 07/09/2010
I agree that gerrymandering is a major issue, but to suggest that it's a bigger obstacle to fair elections that campaign finance is simply untrue. Even if gerrymandering had an equal effect upon who gets elected, it lacks the significance of campaign finance as it applies to the execution of duties by our elected officials. Once in office, the heavy influence of special interest money controls the voice and vote of our representatives. Also, the drive to secure more campaign funds for reelection starts immediately and consumes an inordinate amount of time (estimated at 20% to 40%) that should be spent tending to the business of the people.
09:55 PM on 07/08/2010
Election and campaign finance reform are the most critical priorities there are: without fixing the system and its incentives, the outcome of the process will never change. As things stand today, money is the essential ingredient in any campaign, to such an extent that parties are constrained to recruit people who have (a) existing name recognition, (b) independent wealth and/or (c) the ability to raise large sums of money from others. Except (to some degree) in respect of (a), this systematically favors those with concentrated wealth, who effectively purchase public goods, in an implicit but pervasive fashion, with their contributions (or at a minimum block matters that contravene their economic interests using the extremely conservative structures of our legislative system).

This bill doesn't go nearly all the way but it's a start. For more details:
http://www.publicampaign.org/fair-elections-now-summary
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
katmeyster
Proud practical progressive atheist
08:27 PM on 07/08/2010
This should be the most important story on HP -- but it never gets much play because it isn't sexy enough. Can you imagine how much our political system would change if politicians could not spend their own, or any corporations, money? If they were all limited to a set amount given to them by the taxpayer and limited to a 3 month campaign? If they couldn't be lobbyists or consultants when they were done? Only dedicated public servants would run, and there would be billions less in earmarks that are essentially favors to campaign contributors. Legislation would be based on what was best for the country, not as a kickback for donations. We would have an entirely different country. But I'm pretty sure no one in power truly wants this, as it would be too close to democracy and accountability, so any bill will be watered-down, rhetorically-based, dreck. Sorry.
08:52 PM on 07/08/2010
So does just anyone get to run, or only those who are favored by whatever the current government would be? Lots of ways this could be abused. Also, what if someone completely unqualified tries to run for office? Who judges the qualifications?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
11:21 PM on 07/08/2010
You need to read up on the systems presently being proposed. They require candidates to accumulate certain amounts of small dollar contributions within their appropriate constituency before they qualify for public funds. Beyond that, there is no judging of qualification, but then do we have any such mechanism now?

The bottom line is that even if it's not perfect, it's got to be better than whoever can get the most money wins . . .

If you're interested in learning more, this article has information and links: http://www.thinkersjam.com/who-is-congress-working-for/
05:04 PM on 07/08/2010
Any time that you see or hear "good government groups" advocating anything, run for the hills with your hand on your wallet. These "groups" are invariably left leaning activists trying to obtain some advantage for left wing special interest groups like unions, trial lawyers, illegal immigrants or welfare sponges. Why not have a requirement to show your ID to vote? Why should voting rights laws apply only to minorities as the current Black Panther voter intimidation case clearly shows? Don't use "good government" bs to push some agenda benefitting Democrats and their big government dependents.
05:09 PM on 07/08/2010
Republicans wouldn't be b!@$ching about the unions if they'd gotten to them first...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ampoliros
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
06:16 PM on 07/08/2010
Why have Good Government that doesn't need to interfere in our lives when you can have bad government and blame it all on Democrats?
04:06 PM on 07/08/2010
How many people that want public financing voted for Mr Obama. The man who promised to use public campaign funds then changed his mind?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HST
Conservatism = selfishness
03:38 PM on 07/08/2010
Republicants are against good government.


That's why they want to be elected so badly...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:38 PM on 07/08/2010
AZ has a publicly funded program to aid less wealthy candidates, but Brewer's opponant, Buzz 'Saw" Mills, has had the Supreme Court suspend it right before the election so even Brewer can't get the money she hoped participating in the program would provide her. Buzz Saw doesn't like people's money gathering together to shout down his money, two miillion of his own spent on his failure to do anything but push Brewer right. Worked like a charm.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
taiwanjohn
03:10 PM on 07/08/2010
The thing I like about this bill is the way it provides and incentive for individuals to spread their donations around and to engage their peers in the process. For example, let's say I've got $500 to invest in an election. I could give it all to one candidate, but that would be dumb, because I would lose the matching funds (the $4 government portion). With this bill, I could give $100 to each of 5 candidates, and ALL of them would get $500 each.

But let's say there are only 2 or 3 candidates on the ballot that I really want to support financially... what to do with the "extra" money, if I can only give $100 to each one? Well, I could call up a friend, neighbor, or relative, and ask them to donate $100 to someone on my behalf. Better yet, I could offer to "match" their donation, if they agree to donate something to a candidate of my choice. Then it would be up to me to "sell" my candidate to them.

Thus, this bill would encourage each individual donor to make the most of his/her money, and to bring more people from the "sidelines" into the political process.

--jrd
02:27 PM on 07/08/2010
Public financing advocates, which social programs do you want to reduce their size or budgets to pay for this? Cause this certianly would not qualify as "emergency" spending so PAYGO would be in effect.

How do you determine who gets public financing? Is it open to anyone that gets on a ballot? Is it only for the general election? Is it for all races or just the national one. Only state wide races? All races? What would be the crtieria to be eligble for the funds?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
taiwanjohn
02:44 PM on 07/08/2010
Google is your friend:

http://www.publicampaign.org/fair-elections-now-summary

"If the system proves popular like similar laws at the state level, the new system could cost between $700 and $850 million per year."

IOW, in "national budget" terms... chump change.

--jrd
03:20 PM on 07/08/2010
Thank for the link

Nearly a trillon dollars is not a drop in the bucket in any terms.

But as for the actuall bill. It would never work in my home state of maine. Especially in district 2 where the popluation is much less and in general less affluent. Finding 1,500 donors may be problematic.

The bill does not cover POTUS.

Most importantly it is not mandatory. IF it was mandatory then you could virtually lock in a cost. But sicne it is not it states that oppenents of self financed campaigns woudl have mathcing funds availale.

Looking at this year alone. If this was in place all of the eligble republican primary oponents of Linda McMahon would have had access to funds matching the ridiculous amounts she spent and that was just the primary. That would seem to be a unwise burden on the taxpayers.
Grunty1
Micro-bio this
02:48 PM on 07/08/2010
Drop in the bucket for our bloated military budget.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Quitcherbichin
If you are posting here, thank a veteran.
06:07 PM on 07/08/2010
That bloated military budget keeps your butt safe Cupcake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Larry Kurnarsky
02:06 PM on 07/08/2010
Prediction: This is not going to work, in the sense that trying to patch a rotted out garden hose never works. There's an underlying cause being ignored, and its short name is Oligarchy.

What I mean is that anything might work, as a singularity. In fact, from the point of view of the Olies, their media clacks, and political Igors, publicly appearing to right the occasional wrong can serve a purpose. It makes the Olies seem not so rotten. And that obscures the root cause of the problem, THEM. The point is that no single act of contrition or reform will significantly stop the Oligarchs from amassing: Power and Profits.

Being that they're Business Moguls of various kinds (but strongly favoring financial capital) the power is not so much what's relished, like it probably was for Julius Caesar or Napoleon. For the Olies, power is a means to keep the money machine paying off. The money machine is their end-all and they're mentally incapable of thinking beyond ii. In a way, they have, themselves, becomes cogs in the machine. Big cogs, but cogs.The machine has been assembled over time from many different sources, but almost no one, and essentially no one in the media, visualizes the whole of it. It's like the Buddhist tory of blind men, each holding a different part of an elephant, and attempting to describe the critter. Each describes a different beast. But it's an elephant, friends. And it's in the room. Our room.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:27 PM on 07/08/2010
Money is power in our sad system, The very wealthy by that power control both parties, the report of this reform does indeed not solve the issue, but not as I see it, not for the reason you present>For moneyed power shall change it's ways to accomplish it's ends, they shall simply buy the " voices" of the new system, the people and organizations funding the bill, this has been the "elephants" m.o. and will remain so. Our room has indeed had an elephant sitting in it for a very, very, very long time. To see the elephant you must first discover it's voices, difficult and time consuming to do. The elephant is very good at remaing in plain sight but not being seen, the FOCUS I have spoken of repeatedly, GET the elephant and then and only then will we be able to change effectively our system and the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Larry Kurnarsky
02:55 PM on 07/08/2010
In a sense, you are correct, but shall we use the right name? Capitalism. Capitalism in its dying stages. Capitalism that has outlasted its usefulness, which was always limited anyway. It was always limited in terms of the number of people globally who benefitted from it, as opposed to Europe and North America. It was always Capitalism but now it's incapable of supporting a middle class, not here, not for long in China and India, not in Greece, soon not in Germany and Britain. Soon there will only be a great many very poor to starving people who are either manipulated mentally so that they will not rebel or they will be dealt with. So, yes, now we have named the elephant. It's not money.
01:54 PM on 07/08/2010
Why bother worrying about having fair elections when the entire electoral systems sucks?? Think of all the new strategies the incumbents would have to come up with if there was no counting of red or a blue states? What if they had to worry about every single American citizen? What if the popular vote was the RULE for all elections, including the Presidential election? If we want everyone to participate in the voting process, shouldn't we be promised that our vote will count? A person's vote only counts to how the State will vote, and you are screwed if the majority doesn't agree with you. If you are a Democrat who lives in a predominantly Republican state, why bother going to the polls?

It is a priviledge and an honor to live in a country that allows the people the freedom to vote. We should let the PEOPLE VOTE.
02:15 PM on 07/08/2010
oops, I meant candidates, NOT incumbents..
02:28 PM on 07/08/2010
Why should people in CA vote on the reps for Maine?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
J0E1
Phil Hill 2012
02:51 PM on 07/08/2010
How often to the reps from Maine vote on legislation that only affects Maine citizens?
03:04 PM on 07/08/2010
They wouldnt. The presidential election is the biggest election. If voters feel like they can make a difference in that one, chances are more voters will show up for the State elections.
01:44 PM on 07/08/2010
FENA? - that means there are unfair elections in America, like the one where Bush won?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HST
Conservatism = selfishness
03:39 PM on 07/08/2010
x2!