An Attempt to Bring Integrity to our Politcal Process

In 1999, Al Gore held the record for first quarter presidential fundraising bringing in $8.9 million. In 2007, six candidates--three Democrats and three Republicans--each raised more that $12.5 million during that same period. Moreover, Sens. Clinton and Obama, along with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney raised $26 million, $25 million, and $23 million respectively.

With nearly $130 million dollars raised by both parties in the first quarter of 2007, 19 months before the presidential election, we are definitely on pace to have the first $1 billion presidential election. And this does not include the myriad house and senate races in 2008.

We can conclude that this is simply a case of market forces at work, but such forces will continue to move more disenchanted people into the Apathetic Party.

The current trend may bode well for those who can raise the requisite funds to compete but the public appears to be growing weary. They view the undo influence of the wealthiest interest and lobbyist along with how they impact public policy.

According to Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign, the 2006-midterm election exit polling revealed that 42 percent ranked ethics in government and corruption as the issue that determined their vote. It ranked higher than the war in Iraq, terrorism, or healthcare.

While the recent scandals may be what is most glaring, just beneath the surface lies the influence of money and how easily our government can be leased to the highest bidder. The ever-growing influence of money and the need to raise huge amounts quickly under the current system strongly suggests that candidates could become less discerning about whom they raise money from.

The average cost for a US senate race between 2002-2006 doubled. Many incumbent House members are being counseled by their leadership to have $1 million by the end of this year in preparation for their 2008 reelection bids.

If, as Public Campaign notes, that one-quarter of one percent of Americans -- roughly 777,000 people, or the population of Jacksonville, Florida --gave a campaign contribution of more than $200, where does the money come from that totaled $130 million in the first quarter of 2007? Wherever it leads, it cannot be a good sign for our democracy.

The Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored Sens. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), would provide public funds to qualified candidates for federal races who voluntarily agree to campaign spending limits and refuse private contributions.

The legislation also takes into account that campaigning in California is much more expensive than, say, Idaho. There are also provisions to provide additional funding when running against candidates who are outside the voluntary system or when attacked by 527 organizations like MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Fair Elections Now Act, which is based on the Clean Elections that are now state law in part or all in seven states and two cities, most notably Arizona and Maine.

In Arizona, 42 percent of the members serving in the legislature and six out of eight statewide officers won using Clean Elections. Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano won her second race as a Clean Elections candidate. Her Republican opponent also ran using the system.

In Maine, 84 percent of the legislators elected used Clean Elections in their races. Three out of five gubernatorial candidates used the system as well.

States and municipalities that have implemented Clean Elections have witnessed the process increase the diversity of candidates because an individual's ability to raise money is no longer a primary consideration. Furthermore, given the process is dependent upon a set number of small contributions (in most cases $5), there is also greater diversity reflected in the donors.

In his 25 years in Congress, Sen. Durbin considers this bill to be the most important piece of legislation that he has sponsored. Just as this a bipartisan sponsored bill, there will be bipartisan opposition.

Every candidate running for office in 2008, regardless of party, should be held accountable for their position on this legislation. Opposition to the Fair Elections Now Act should be seen as synonymous with opposition to reclaiming the integrity of our political process.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at [e-mail] or leave a message at [phone].