Progressive Voices

There's been some good news on the campaign finance reform front of late. With a little luck and some hard work by people who care, it could provide momentum for proposed federal legislation that would take one of the most obvious and logical next steps: making public campaign financing an option for members of U.S. Congress.

The first bit of good news came recently when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a West Virginia judge who received some $3 million in campaign contributions from the mining industry should never have heard an appeals case involving one of that industry's biggest players. This ruling is a potential springboard for acknowledging and, hopefully, addressing the problem of special interest money in other political contests such as congressional races. It needn't be a huge leap. There's no dearth of anecdotal evidence linking campaign donations to lopsided policies. Consider these examples:

• $5.4 million from agriculture interests and more than $500,000 from oil and gas interests since 1989 to influence ethanol policy;
• More than $300,000 to Chair Rep. John Murtha (and more than $1.3 million to other Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense members) in the 2008 election cycle that was ultimately parlayed into $355 million in earmarks for those donors;
• Wall Street's big investment in campaigns (and lobbying) to "convince" Congress that in recent decades to support the nation's disastrous experiment with financial deregulation.

So what options do we have for helping policy makers escape the ever-escalating arms race of campaign fundraising and campaign spending? What alternative is there to a system Americans understand just isn't working?   

Many citizens advocate for limits on campaign spending.  For better or worse, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that money is speech and must not be squelched. For now, limiting spending is off the table. 

An increasingly popular and proven alternative idea is optional public campaign financing for candidates who prove their viability by raising a large number of relatively small qualifying contributions. North Carolina has successful public campaign financing programs that, along with those in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, could serve as models for a federal public campaign financing program. The track record of these programs tells us that we should, at the very least, begin exploring similar programs for congressional public financing. 

Public campaign financing may not be a perfect system, but it cannot be worse than the one we have now.  And if it works as well as reformers envision, it can:

• Sever the connection between special interest campaign donations and public policy;
• Liberate elected leaders vying for re-election to focus on policy setting rather than fundraising;
• Increase competition for offices - right now, the prohibitive cost of  campaigns results in way too many uncontested seats;
• Level the playing field for candidates without wealth or access to wealth;
• Instill confidence in our government.

This brings us to our second bit of good news: HR 1826, a bill co-sponsored by Republican North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones that would introduce the public financing option in Congress.  All North Carolinians - who are justifiably proud of our successful state-level programs — should support Rep. Jones and Rep. John Larson (D-CT) in their efforts to get more co-sponsors for HR-1826.

Good government begins with good elections.  Now, more than ever, we need our government to work effectively and efficiently, with the best and brightest at the helm. Insanity, some have said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It's time to admit our current campaign finance system invites corruption. And until someone comes up with a better idea, let us use what we have learned in a growing number of programs across the country and apply that knowledge to optional public campaign financing at the federal level.

Please contact your Congressional representative today and ask him or her to co-sponsor HR-1826.

Molly Beacham is with Democracy North Carolina

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, June 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am and is filed under Progressive Voices. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.