Reform suggests that something is being changed and improved by correcting faults, removing inconsistencies, as well as abuses. In political speak, reform is something that is talked about more than it is actually implemented.
AB 583, sponsored by Berkeley Assembly member Loni Hancock (D), could represent a legitimate first step in how politics is conducted in the Golden State.
AB 583, also known as the "clean elections" bill, follows the path blazed by Arizona and Maine that could create authentic campaign finance reform. The bill made it out of the Elections Committee and now heads to Appropriations.
Although just the beginning, getting AB583 out of committee is in the words of Hancock, "a great first step."
Initiated in 2000, Arizona and Maine have instituted real campaign reform that is cutting the contribution umbilical cord between candidates and special interest. AB 583 calls for a voluntary public financing system that simply requires that one:
* Collect a set number of small contributions.
* Agree to voluntary spending limits.
* Do not accept campaign contributions from any private source.
* No campaign contributions from the candidate's own pocket.
By complying with these requirements, candidates receive full public funding for their primary and general election campaigns.
In Arizona, voters elected a bipartisan mix of candidates who ran clean elections, including the Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer; 45% of state representatives also ran and won without taking any special interest money under the clean election guidelines.
Competition for statewide office in Arizona has increased 64% in 6 years, as well as an upsurge in the participation of women and people of color seeking elected office. In Maine, most of those who are serving in the state House and Senate last year were elected without taking any campaign money from corporate special interests.
Moreover, six years after clean elections passed in Arizona, a KAET television poll showed that only 18 percent of the electorate opposed its clean election laws.
AB583 also brings with it the possibility of increased voter participation. States that have enacted clean election laws have witnessed a higher turnout, especially in areas that have been traditionally under represented.
Clean elections also have the potential to return us back to the Tip O'Neil axiom: "All politics are local." Instead of dialing for dollars, candidates would spend more of their time engaging with voters.
Opponents of campaign finance reform love to point out that the issue does not poll high with the electorate. I doubt if we polled 100 farmers who is best qualified to watch the hen house that the fox would poll particularly high.
In case anyone has failed the notice the fox is in charge of the political hen house known as campaign contributions. What does it say when 90 percent of political contributions come by way of corporations and PACs?
Should we wonder when a majority of the voting age population in California opts for the Apathetic Party, finding something more engaging to do than vote of Election Day?
As Hancock said to me immediately after AB583 made it out of committee: "There are systems that bring out the worst and some systems bring out the best." AB583 clearly carries the potential of the latter.
Public campaign financing is a major step in removing the corruptive nature of politics, the undo policy influences of special interest, while simultaneously enhancing the number of people who believe their vote does indeed matter.
My grandmother was famous for saying: "You dance with who brung ya!" Until now, it is the special interest on all sides that has exclusive rights on not only on who dances with elected officials, they have selected the songs and the key in which it would be played.
The primary qualification for elected office should not be based on one's ability to raise money. Rather it should be based on the ideas that one puts forth.
If AB583 has the potential to increase voter participation, competition for elected office, and make elected officials more accountable to the people, the only question should be how can we make it law?