Clean Elections For California?

Several states have already joined in on the idea of clean elections, including the notorious Arizona, scenic Maine, nutmeggy Connecticut to name a few. To add the nation's largest state to the list though would be an impressive victory against special interest politics. California has it's shot to do just that this coming Tuesday.

From Calitics:

Proposition 15, the California Fair Elections Act, is widely known as the proposal to have the Secretary of State elected by a clean money system beginning in 2014 as a way to demonstrate the viability of the concept to Californians. But that's not all Prop 15 does, and not the only way it can expand clean money to the rest of the state. Prop 15 also removes a 20-year old restriction on local governments adopting clean money, and makes it easier to expand the system in the future by not requiring a follow-up vote to create public financing for other statewide races. [...]

If Prop 15 passes, local governments will be able to create their own publicly funded elections systems, though they'll have to also create the funding source. The state legislature could also expand public funding to other statewide offices as well, including governor, but they too would have to create a new funding source.

Now that is a tough bill. Californians, for the few that read this NY blog should remember to vote yes, and all those in New York would do well by telling their west coast friends to clean California's electoral system by voting yes on 15!

Now if only New York could do the same, it would help to sweep away much of the mess that is fueled by special interests in Albany.

Newsday Supports Campaign Finance Bill In Assembly

I was pleased to see Newsday's quick post about the public finance bill that had passed the Assembly last week. With all of the bills being pushed onto the senate by Governor Paterson, this has to be at the top of the list. Our system of electing people to represent us is fundamentally broken and the power of money has far too much influence on how things work (just ask Pedro Espada). However, the bill...and Newsday's backing of it, hardly goes far enough.

From Newsday:

Last week, the Assembly - that half of the State Legislature that is still at work - passed a bill that would create public financing for state elections. The bill is modeled on the New York City system, which has succeeded in opening city elections to many new faces. Participating candidates would receive a 4-to-1 match for individual donations up to $250, and donors could give just $2,000.

The bill would phase in public financing beginning with the 2010 race for state comptroller. A widening pay-to-play probe of the Alan Hevesi years demonstrates the high stakes; the $154-billion pension fund should be far better insulated.

A phase-in is best, too, when state coffers are this empty. Full public funding would cost $100 million to $125 million over a four-year election cycle. Of course, the potential savings in reduced public corruption are incalculable.

Yes, those benefits are incalculable. I'm 100% with you that we need to get money out of politics, but if Newsday wants to see that as much as I do, then we need to push for real reform. Now I understand that Albany isn't going to do this willingly but proponents must talk about the benefits to get more people on our side and the political will power to not only limit the size of donations, but to make large contributors irrelevant. It already works in Arizona and Maine, it can work here too, but only if we fight for it.

Bailing Out Rich Financial Firms Doesn't Make Sense, So Follow The Money

"Follow the money" has almost become a cliché in Washington and for how business is done in our capitol. The reason is because like most clichés, there is a fundamental truth between money and politics and the outcome of legislation when the two are added together. Take yesterday's bailout bill for example, it was a close vote and not political party had little to do with whether one Congresscritter voted for it or didn't. If anything, it was the leadership of both majority and minority that were for it and the legislators lower down the totem poll voted nay.

Answering why that may be, OpenSecrets has an idea:

WASHINGTON -- Members of the House of Representatives who supported bailing out the financial sector with $700 billion in taxpayer money have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector in their congressional careers than those who opposed the emergency legislation, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics calculated following the 228-205 vote on Monday that defeated the House bill.

Examining campaign contributions from the industries that were most eager to see the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 passed, the Center found that the gap between lawmakers who supported the bailout and those who successfully opposed it was especially wide among House Democrats.

In this election cycle, Democrats backing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposal have collected 78 percent more from the finance, insurance and real estate (or FIRE) sector than those in their caucus who opposed it and, over time, 88 percent more. In dollar figures, the 140 Democrats who supported the bailout proposal have received $792,744 over their careers from the FIRE sector and $188,572 in this cycle, on average. The 95 Democrats who voted against the bill have received $420,686 over their careers and $105,878 in the 2007-2008 cycle. (CRP's campaign finance data goes back to the 1990 election cycle, or the calendar year 1989.)

The 65 Republicans who backed the bill have collected $1,078,533 from the finance sector in their careers and an average of $185,461 toward this election. The 133 Republicans who led the opposition to the bailout have collected, on average, $705,297 over their careers in Congress and $150,381 in this election cycle alone. That translates into a difference of about 23 percent in this cycle and 53 percent over time.

If you head over there to the full article, the nifty graphs show that Republicans got more whether they voted yea or nay based on the natural affinity for Wall Street over in the GOP. Yet the strongest correlation is the money, not partisan identification. The true problem in Washington is the money, hands down. The Center for Responsive Politics does an excellent job of highlighting the discrepancies and should elicit the public to question their representatives on their vote and why they received so much money from the financial sector.

Now while persuadable politicians are a problem, they are merely a symptom of the much larger systemic ailment we endure. If we were able to clean up the system so that money were given from a public account, politicians would be held more accountable by the people and not the industries that fuel their campaigns and cushy retirement gigs. If you live in Arizona or Maine you know what I'm talking about at the state and local level, imagine how much better things would get if we could develop a similar system nation-wide. There are plans in development to go Federal, but they need all of our support, if we do not push our legislators to action, it'll never happen, because it is in their interest to stay elected and ultimately an informed citizenry (with clean elections) wrests power from corporate America and gives it back to the people.

Luke Henry Takes Clean Elections To The Streets

Luke Henry is running for the 64th Assembly District seat and also to rid Albany of Sheldon Silver, one of the "three men in the room." Luke has to spend most of his time dialing for dollars, but with clean elections, he can spend more time making videos like this:

Solid Support For Clean Elections In New York

It doesn't surprise me that people want corruption out of politics. It isn't a shocker that our government should be transparent to the city, the state or the country. It won't knock the socks off anyone to hear that citizens would love a solution to the problem of money in politics in order to clean up the mess we have (specifically in Albany). What is important though is that Citizen Action of NY commissioned a poll to show our semi-new Governor that we mean business about changing the system.

From The Daily Politics:

Citizen Action of New York, which endorsed Eliot Spitzer for governor and frequently acted as his surrogate during the '06 Democratic gubernatorial primary by hitting Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi on his fundraising tactics, today released a poll it commissioned from Zogby that showed overwhelming support for public financing of campaigns.

In the accompanying press release, Citizen Action declared Gov. David Paterson a "long-time champion" of the Clean Money/Clean Elections plan tested in the poll, noting that the now-governor was the prime sponsor of legislation to enact publicly-financed campaigns from 1989 until he left the Senate to become Spitzer's LG.

Since his ascention to governor, Paterson hasn't mentioned a word about Clean Money/Clean Elections. In fact, the topic of campaign finance reform - an issue that was a serious bone of contention between Spitzer and the Senate Republicans - hasn't come up at all since Paterson's first press conference as governor-in-waiting, 'lo those many weeks ago.

Despite being in the State Senate, Paterson has been a good friend to the progressive community through the years. Representing Harlem should make him into someone that fights for the working class and those that hold left-leaning ideals. Now the Governor has been quite the conciliator lately, starting with the budget. For the budget, I get that most of it was put together before he started, so he gets off for letting the Republicans take as much as they did despite the wishes of the people. Next year should look much better.

Back to clean elections, this is really a no-brainer. It isn't a partisan issue, its a corrupt old-style way of thinking versus one that is accountable to citizens issue. We need reform in New York and its time for Paterson to start moving on getting this passed, so we can start to put the "three men in a room" way of business out of its misery.

Tony Avella Wants Clean Money In NYC

Unlike other politicians in New York that think clean money means having it laundered, Councilman Tony Avella wants to see election reform here in Gotham. Avella is somewhat of a renegade compared to the other 50 members, and consistently advocates for meaningful reform, even if it has a small chance of passing. Yesterday however, he stood up with election reform proponents (myself included) on the steps of City Hall in order to get a bill ready for the Mayor and Council to consider.....and pass.

From The Daily News:

Queens Councilman Tony Avella, the underdog 2009 mayoral hopeful who views the fact that he has raised less money than his opponents as a badge of honor, today unveiled a Clean Money, Clean Elections bill that would provide a full public financing (at the taxpayers' expense) for candidates for city office.

(And yes, this is part of the revolution).

Avella argues that the current partial public financing system is failing because many candidates opt out in order to avoid spending limits.

The system as it exists also relies too heavily on bundlers and special interest donors, the councilman said, (albeit less so since the campaign finance reform signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg, which is being challenged in federal court).

Avella denounced his fellow citywide candidates (particularly a certain Council Speaker) for accepting too much special interest cash, particularly from developers.

"They're not contributing just for the sake of it, they're contributing because they want something," Avella said. "I tell people when they give to me, they're not getting any favors."

I asked Avella whether he would accept contributions from developers and he responded: "It's not going to happen." He later amended that to: "If there were no strings attached, yes," allowing that there are some "good developers who try to work with the community."

That said, there are some people from whom Avella said he would never accept campaign cash - Donald Trump, for example.

The Daily News doesn't sound too hopeful in her post about this having a chance to happen but that doesn't mean this is over before it starts. The Mayor himself ran on a theme that he couldn't be bought and his support on this issue what kick things into high gear. Of course at the moment he is rather busy with passing congestion pricing, so we'll have to check back next week after the Council is finished with that 'little' matter.

Come Stand Up For Clean Elections In NY Today!

At high noon on the steps of City Hall you can be part of the action and see the efforts made by Citizen Action as Councilman Tony Avella joins us to propose a truly clean elections system here in New York, both as a state and here in the city. There has been a lot of hard work involved in getting just to this point, but with the help of many New Yorkers that have not heard the call, we can help enact real reform right here, right now.

From The Daily Gotham:

Join Council Member Tony Avella and me on Tuesday, March 25, at noon, on the steps of City Hall. Council Member Avella will be announcing the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" (CMCE) bill that he is sponsoring in the City Council. The more support we can get, in the form of people coming out, the more initial impact we'll make.

CMCE will virtually eliminate private fundraising for candidates. It will truly level the playing field for candidates who don't have access to big money. It will reduce the lower of lobbyists who use big campaign donations and bundling to gain access to our elected officials. In short, CMCE will make our elected officials responsible to constituents, not special interests.

This will be an enormous uphill battle. Entrenched special interests, and the politicians in their pockets, will fight tooth and nail to maintain the current system. They'll call it "the best in the country," without a shred of evidence to back that claim up. They'll put legislative hurdles in our path.

That post would be from Dan Jacoby, one of the key citizen backers of this legislation. It is immensely important to him to see real reform in New York, as it is to myself. I hope we will get a huge turnout today, so come one, come all and see citizen action in progress!

Lobbyists And Developers Claim Racial Bias In Campaign Finance Reform

This poor minority pictured to the right is fighting to make a difference here in New York City. James Bopp Jr. is sick and tired of a new law that prohibits poor lobbyists and real estate developers from being able to exercise their freedom of using endless amounts of cash speech so that they can help elect candidates that support their views. Speaker Christine Quinn is in the target sight of these victims after she passed a law that was instituted to clamp down on special interest money's effect on elections here. Now James, who has already fought back Vermont's attempt at kicking corporate interests out of their government is in town to support the rights of all the poor developers, you know, derelicts like Bruce Ratner and Donald Trump.

From The New York Times:

A lawsuit financially backed by the business interests and others was filed Monday in federal court in Manhattan against the City Campaign Finance Board, which enforces the campaign finance system. The suit charged that the limits violated free speech and equal protection provisions of the Constitution and discriminated against minorities.

The law, which has been called one of the toughest in the nation, aims to diminish the influence of special interests on city campaigns. It reduces by more than 90 percent the amount that those who do business with the city can contribute, to $400 from $4,950 in a mayor’s race, for instance, and to $250 from $2,950 in City Council races.

And what was Mr. Bopp's premise for the lawsuit?

In an unusual tack, Mr. Bopp claimed that New York’s limits would make it more difficult for minority candidates to run, because they tend to come from poorer areas where their neighbors cannot contribute, so they must turn to business interests for donations.

“When minority candidates run, their natural constituency is their neighborhoods and their neighbors,” Mr. Bopp said in a telephone interview.

“And the unfortunate reality is that the minority population is on average in the lower socioeconomic level and less able to contribute, so minority candidates have to rely — I am told by activists here, consultants — that they tend to rely disproportionately on contributions from outside of their district, and in particular, business interests. So that this would disproportionately affect them.”

Aww how nice of him to care about minorities like that, especially when the interests he represents are the principle factor in driving up rent across the city that ultimately forces many minorities out of New York. Some experts though doubt his sincerity.

Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia University and an expert on campaign finance law, said the lawsuit appeared to be a “stretch,” particularly the aspects claiming racial discrimination.

“It’s going to affect everybody,” Mr. Briffault said. “There’s no evidence that Hispanics or African-American candidates are particularly dependent on lobbyist donations than white candidates.”

Yes Professor Briffault, it is a stretch, those laws are a good first step in combating the problem with money and elections. Of course Speaker Quinn could have gone a different way, but that is something we are working on as well. Eventually we will have clean elections in the city and throughout the state, it is only a matter of time.