Fair Elections Now Act introduced to change political culture

Okay, looks like people are serious about fixing politics, key to which is reducing the role on money in campaigns. I've been talking for years to people who really know this stuff, boiling it down to:

• He who pays the piper calls the tune.
• Money has a major corrupting influence in politics
• If someone is going to own the politicians, it might as well be us.

You can read more about it at Common Cause but here's the gist:

1. To reduce the influence of big donors over federal elections. Under current law, individual contributions are limited to $2,300 per candidate per race, a level far beyond the means of the vast majority of citizens - and bundlers are often able to acquire unparalleled access to members of Congress when they combine individual contributions to present candidates with bundles of anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 or more.

2. To bring campaigns and campaign finance reform into the 21st century. Thanks in part to the Internet; campaigns are able to reach out to more people and to raise greater amounts in small individual donations. The Obama presidential campaign raised more from small donors than anyone in history, but the trend in Congressional races is exactly the opposite. We believe Congressional candidates could raise more in small donations than in years past, but only if they are weaned from their extreme reliance on big donors.

3. To offer a system that candidates - incumbents and challengers - will find attractive. Candidates will be freed from the burden of constantly seeking funds from lobbyists and powerful interests. A combination of small donors and public financing will put an end to that distracting and debilitating hunt for big dollars. Candidates will still have to spend time raising money, but for only a portion of their campaign funds; and that fundraising activity will be redirected to broader groups of citizens. Also, by basing our bill on data from the most recent elections, we can provide a level of funding that realistically allows candidates who opt into the new system to compete successfully with candidates who do not.

Comments

[seanparnell]

05:49 PM on 04/01/2009

There's lots wrong with this description, but I'll just point out one major problem:

"Candidates will still have to spend time raising money, but for only a portion of their campaign funds..."

Actually, few if any candidates will spend any time raising the 1,500 donations or more (for Senate) required for millions in taxpayer dollars. They'll just outsource it to organized interest groups with paid staff and volunteer muscle. That's how they do it in other states with this welfare for politicians scam, just find friendly interest groups willing to get you qualified for your handout.

And of course, we're to believe when it comes time to address issues important to the groups that helped raise the qualifying contributions that the elected official won't remember...

Sorry, but 'getting money out of politics' is just a platitude, devoid of any real possibility of success (but it sure sounds good on t.v.!). Contrary to the fevered imaginations of self-styled 'reformers,' contributions rarely buy favors or lead to corruption in an meaningful sense of the term - legislators vote the way they do because that's what the told the voters they'd do - or perhaps you thought the Republican Congress ('95 - '06) promised their voters they'd crack down on Wall Street, raise taxes, and impose new regulations on industry?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]