Every year when August rolls around, members of Congress fan out from Washington, DC to their home districts. They meet with constituents. They meet with campaign donors.
But never before have they faced Clean Elections Week.
On Monday, August 20, a coalition of reform groups including Public Campaign, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG, is launching Clean Elections Week. A base of more than half a million online activists will be asked to contact their representatives in Congress and deliver a simple message:
"I'm concerned about the role of money in politics and the scandals in Washington, and I think the best way to make elections fair and to restore accountability to the people is to pass public financing of elections. Clean Elections-style public financing has worked well in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, and lots of other places. Please support public financing of elections."
The moment couldn't be more ripe. The headlines are showing that campaign finance reform is a potent issue, to which members of Congress must pay attention.
Just last week, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), the infamous "representative #1" from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's January plea agreement, announced he would not run for re-election after all. Ney allegedly accepted a long list of favors from Abramoff in exchange for helping the lobbyist and his clients.
Ney was immediately declared the latest political casualty of the Abramoff scandal, joining the ranks of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), who resigned last April and former Christian Coalition golden boy Ralph Reed, who lost his Republican primary race for the lieutenant governorship of Georgia. Other lawmakers, among others, caught in the Abramoff net include Reps. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Richard Pombo (R-CA), John Doolittle (R-CA), and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MN). All took contributions from Abramoff or his clients and took actions in their interests.
Clean Elections represents a way out of the pay-to-play system that ensnares so many members of Congress. It presents an alternative way for candidates to run a competitive campaign who want to run on the issues rather then after special interest group cash. Under this system, candidates for office are required to collect a specified number of small contributions, typically $5, to prove that they have support in their community. They then receive public grants to run a competitive campaign for office. If their opponent is privately funded and outspends them, they are eligible for more money up to a limit. They are also often eligible for more money if faced with outside advertising.
Clean Elections has been in place for statewide and legislative races in Maine and Arizona since 2000 and for judicial races in North Carolina since 2004. Four other states and two cities have adopted Clean Elections for all or some of their races: Connecticut; New Jersey; New Mexico; Vermont; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Portland, Oregon.
Clean Elections is popular among candidates. In Arizona this year, 60 percent of the candidates are running "Clean." Ten out of 11 of the lawmakers serving in state-wide office ran using public financing. In Maine, 78 percent of the current legislature ran using public funding. From the voters' perspective, they are able to choose from a more diverse group of candidates and see more competition for office.
In the House, Reps. John Tierney and Raul Grijalva are lead sponsors of H.R. 3099, which would establish public financing of elections for House races. A similar bill for the Senate is expected to be introduced soon. In California, voters will have the chance in November to vote for Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Initiative, which would establish public financing of elections for all statewide and legislative races in the state.
Members of Congress should take the heat in Washington seriously--and I'm not talking about the weather. It's time for them to listen to their constituents and take a good, long look at Clean Elections.