ADVOCACY JOURNALISM: Whose Truth?
Hawaii
clean elections group refutes MALIA
Zimmerman’s attack
against new public campaign funding option
Polls showed that more than 2/3rds of Bush voters believed that Iraq
had or was actively developing weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq
substantially supported al-Qaed and its 9/11 attack. Given all the contrary information
disseminated in the major media and Congressional hearings, one can only
wonder: How can this be? Part of the
answer to this question forces us to consider how the political information
system is radically changing in America.
The power of Advocacy Journalism, the spreading of highly partisan and slanted information
thru cable, radio commentators, blogs and the Internet, was firmly established
in the 2004 campaign. The mainstream
media, with norms of balance and fact checking, no longer play an exclusive
role in setting the national news agenda.
Often the agenda was set by partisans, via political advertising and committed freelance efforts on private
websites and internet blogs. Time and again, the established media reacted to
issues raised and driven by outside groups.
The Republicans brilliantly controlled — and still do to a
considerable extent — the national political debate. President Bush's Social Security
privatization plan gains enormous press coverage as he skillfully uses the White
House bully pulpit, and corporate funders will spend another $200 million
touting it in the media as well.
As Edward Wasserman, Knight Professor in the Department of Journalism
and Mass Communications at Washington and Lee University wrote:
... with the 2004 campaign, patterns of media
influence - of who gets to speak and to be heard - fundamentally shifted, with
once-authoritative voices discredited. A robust new conversation conducted on
the Internet, talk radio and cable TV has assumed historic prominence. Still,
despite an unparalleled richness of information and multiplicity of
perspectives, the discourse that characterized the current campaign season was
dopey, squalid and mendacious... And
vast numbers of people believe important things that aren't true.
["Election 2004 will become a media
milestone," Edward Wasserman,
11/1/2004. http://journalism.wlu.edu/knightcom/11-01-04.html]
Hawai`i's
conservative-biased information system is still in its infancy, but I
anticipate that, as more conservative money flows into the state, more
pro-Republican webpages and blogs will appear to counter our mainstream papers
and TV. I wrote the essay below in
response to an attack piece by a webzine writer who has gained recent notoriety
by authoring a a highly negative (smear?) piece on the wife of a major
political candidate. The
editors of Honolulu's two major newspapers had reviewed the same body of court
materials and concluded that there was no valid story to print. Some additional biographic data: Ms. Zimmerman was fired from the Pacific
Business News a few years back (for political reasons she asserts), and is
a founder of the libertarian Grassroots Institute Of Hawai'i, whose
island-tuned commentaries appear frequently in her self-published www.hawaiireporter.com.
Hawaii
clean elections group refutes MALIA
Zimmerman’s attack against new public campaign funding option
Ira Rohter
February 24, 2005
Here goes Malia Zimmerman again, with another of
her hit pieces attacking Democrats and liberal ideas. Editor and "reporter" of her own
self-published webzine titled Hawaii Reporter, Zimmerman spins together
a series of distortions and selective quotes, wrong information from a single
informant, and misquotes about the Comprehensive Public Funding (Clean
Elections) bill that no real newspaper would print.
Let's look carefully at Zimmerman's accusations,
and the facts. Please bear with me for
the length of this reply: it takes a bit of time to disentangle the truth from
political bias.
=======================
Zimmerman's Hawaii Reporter Headline
reads: Bill Mandating Taxpayers
Subsidize Political Campaigns at a Cost of Millions Passes Senate Judiciary
:
Legislation
Would Provide Candidates $24 Million for Gubernatorial Race, $1.8 Million for
Lieutenant Governor Candidates; $348,000
for Senate Races; $192,000 for House Candidates
Zimmerman wants to make it appear that public
funding is a hugely expensive rip-off of taxpayers, that it was tried and
rejected by Massachusetts voters, and that "Fraud [is] Rampant Where Clean
Elections Programs Exist." The
facts are staggeringly different from what Zimmerman writes.
It is curious that Republican-favoring Zimmerman
has ignored one of Clean Elections' strongest advocates, Arizona's Republican
Senator John McCain. Only this January,
McCain noted that in 2004 Arizona's public finance laws produced a record number of small-dollar contributions
to state level political parties and candidates, a reduction in the influence
of entrenched interests, and an
expansion in civic participation. With
half the candidates running without taking private funds, campaigns have become
more about issues directly affecting constituents than money-bought radio ads
and slick mail-out brochures. Said Senator
McCain
"...
[I]n my home state of Arizona, public campaign financing had been widely
used by candidates since 2000,... thus dramatically reducing the time
candidates spend raising money so they can focus on talking with voters...
[T]hat means more time spent with voters and less time spent at political
fundraisers with big donors."
["Enhancing
Values: Practical Campaign Reforms For States," January, 2005. Reform Institute Publication, Alexandria,
Virginia. www. reforminstitute.org.]
We should
give Zimmerman credit for at least mentioning Hawaii's own state Senator Les
Ihara, D-Kaimuki, who "says he is in favor of public financing because
he believes accepting taxpayer dollars in favor of refusing private donations
will help lawmakers avoid a conflict of interest they inevitably face when
voting on a bill put forth by a contributor."
(1) The money QUESTION
Publicly-funded candidates
must have enough money to run
competitive, potentially winnable campaigns, even against candidates who will outspend them,
is one feature of the Hawai`i bill.
The Comprehensive Public Funding option contained
in this bill does exactly that. In Maine
and Arizona — the basis of the Hawai`i's bill — more and more candidates are
choosing this option — and winning! In Maine, a whopping 83% of the
state Senate (29 out of 35) and 77% of the House (116 out of 151) were elected
with full public funding, taking no private contributions. In Arizona, after only two election
cycles, 58% percent of the members of the state House (35/ 60) and 23% of the
state Senate (7/30) ran and won as "clean" candidates. Ten of Arizona's statewide elected officials,
including its governor, attorney general, treasurer, and four members of the
powerful regulatory Corporation Commission, are free of dependence on private
campaign contributors.
MECHANICS: Initial
Allocations. Hawai`i follows the
Maine formula, which awards funds initially to candidates who can solicit from
their Districts 200-300 Qualifying petitions and $5 contributions, and agree to
take no private funds and obey strict spending limits. "Qualified"
candidates receive an initial amount based on 80% of the average amount spent by winners
over the last two elections for that office.
This serves the goal of reducing the "arms race" nature of
modern campaigns. The allocation is divided into two segments: primary and
general election spending amounts. Again, emphasizing fiscal prudence, only
candidates who have an opponent in the General race receive the second part of
the public funds allocation.
Equalizing
funds to insure competition.
Similar to Arizona's and Maine's well-proven process, candidates can receive supplemental Equalizing
funds, above and beyond their original
allotments, to keep pace with privately-financed opponents if they exceed
spending caps. "Independent expenditures" by
non-candidate committees are included in calculations of excessive
spending.
$$$$
FACTS FOR HAWAII
Because Hawai`i law does not require electronic
filings of campaign spending reports, our student volunteers and staff (with
the help of the state Campaign Spending Commission staff) had to scan and
hand-enter paper reports for 2002 and 2004.
Our best calculations — with some data missing — of the amounts to be
allocated in 2006, based on amounts spend by winners in 2002 and 2004, are:
House
Races: Initial allocations for both Primary and General = $24,000. With the fullest 200% awarding of Equalizing
Fundss funds in the case of a high-spending opponent, the maximum amount
granted would be $71,000 for a qualified House candidate, not $192,000
used by Zimmerman.
Senate Races: Initial allocations for both Primary and General = $47,000. With the fullest awarding of Equalizing Fundss
funds, the maximum would be $142,000 for a Senate candidate, not the $348,000
figure Zimmerman cites.
Conclusions -- Zimmerman's total numbers for House
and Senate candidate are about 250%
exaggerated!
Discussion: In Arizona's 2004 election, only 8% (7/59) of
their publicly funded candidates in Primaries received maximum Equalizing
Funds; in the General (with fewer candidate surviving) only 15% (7/49) received
the fullest amount of Equalizing Funds.
My analysis of Hawaii's 2004 expenditure report data shows a similar
pattern. The empirical evidence shows we
will not break the bank.
In Maine, almost 80 percent of the candidates for
the legislature ran without corporate, special-interest or private donations in
2004, so the total costs for their political campaigns is now going down. Thus
the amount of extra Equalizing Funds is declining. Reported a recent University
of Massachusetts study:
In
considering whether the reforms reduce the role of private money in election
campaigns, this study finds that the overall amount of private contributions
diminishes significantly under the new campaign finance laws. Total candidate
funds from private sources decreased from $3 million in 1998 to $1.6 million in
2000. In 2002, candidate funds from private sources again decreased half, to
$834,000.
[Clean
Elections: An Evaluation of Public Funding for Maine Legislative Contests. Raymond La Raja and Matthew Saradjian. Un Of Massachusetts , Spring 2004. www.masspolicy.org/research]
Governor's
Race. Initial allocations based
on actual spending during both Primary & General periods = $2.9
million. With a one-step Equalizing
Funds increment, successful candidates
who run in both races could hypothetically receive a maximum amount of about $5.9
million. A two-step Equalizing Funds jump
(which we are not advocating but is in the bill) could theoretically max out at
$9 million for major candidates.
FACT:
Zimmerman's Headline claims Governor candidates could receive up to $24
million. Zimmerman's figures are
inflated by 300% - 400%.
Lt. Governor's Race. Initial
allocations for both Primary and General = $469,000. With a one-step Equalizing Funds increment,
successful candidates who run in both races could hypothetically receive a
maximum amount of about $938,000.
A two-step Equalizing Funds jump (which we are not advocating but is
contained in the bill) could theoretically max out at $1,400,000 for
major candidates.
FACT:
Confusingly, Zimmerman gives us two different figures for the costs of the Lt.
Governor race. In her Headline she
states a figure of $1.8 million, but in her text Zimmerman mentions $1.8
million in the Primary alone, "an amount that doubles in the general
election." If one accepts the text as her real intention (and the headline
as just sloppy editing), then Zimmerman's figures are inflated by 257% -
383% in this race.
In sum,
Zimmerman's numbers for how much candidates running under the Comprehensive
Public Funding program would receive are grossly exaggerated by 250%
to 400% from the formula derived from Maine’s model.
(2) administrative costs
inflated by 500%
Zimmerman simply accepts known opponent Bob Watada
‘s assertion that the cost of running the Campaign Spending Commission would
jump by $1,000,000 from it present $436,000 yearly budget. That is, the budget
would triple. FACT: Why
does she ignore the fact that the Comprehensive Public Funding bills add
$200,000 for 4 added staffers because the present office is inadequately
funded, and does not normally audit candidate submissions?
Section 16 adds "Two staff positions for
computer analysis of campaign contributions for auditing and monitoring and the
creation of an online digital filing system for campaign spending reports for
all candidates running for state senate, state house of representatives,
lieutenant governor, and governor; one staff position to administer the
comprehensive public funding program, and one staff person / investigator to
audit submitted reports, as well as funding for the Office Of Elections to
verify the qualifying contributions from registered voters in a candidate's district." [Section 16]
(3) CLAIM:
"Mainland Lobbyists Pushing for Hawaii to Join Maine, Arizona in
Subsidizing Elections"
Zimmerman writes: "Mainland lobbyists pushing
for what they call "clean elections" have flocked to Hawaii in recent
years during the legislative sessions touting the benefits of such programs in
the states of Maine and Arizona."
Who are these sinister outsiders who were brought
in?
One was Maine Representative Boyd Marley, a young
elementary school teacher who told us and Hawai`i Legislators that the Maine's
public funding program has resulted in a substantial increase in the numbers of
women, minorities, school teachers and social workers, and retired people, in
the Legislature. The amount of grassroots
involvement has also grown greatly (Maine is second in the nation in terms of
voter turnout — Hawai`i is 49th.)
This year we brought in two former
legislators. Ed Suslovic, former Maine Association of Realtors official
and then member of the Maine House, and Marc
Spitzer, former Arizona Republican Senate Majority Leader - and now Chair of
the powerful Arizona Corporation Commission.
Each had run campaigns under both
the traditional and Clean Elections programs. They shared with Legislators and staffers the
nitty-gritty details about how the Clean system actually works, and first-hand accounts of how very successful
Public Funding has been in their two states, for both the public and
politicians.
These three legislators — who spent from morning to
night meeting with Hawaii's own legislators, appearing on radio and TV shows,
talking with editorial boards — flew in on coach, stayed in off-beach hotel
rooms, and received bare food expenses while here. They received no honorarium or hourly
fees. Hardly your typical Armani suited,
Gucci-shoed high paid lobbyists rolling around the Capitol.
Another visitor we invited in last year was Doug
Clopp, from the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund. Clopp works on research and
publication of reports identifying the flow of special interest money into
Maine and the influence special interest money has on Maine's public policy
outcomes. He greatly helped us in
designing our own follow-the-money research, and understanding how Maine
administers its public funding program.
The Hawai`i group is also planning to fly in
Jonathan Wayne, Executive Director of the "Maine Commission on
Governmental Ethics and Election Practices," to share Maine's experiences
and procedures with our own state Campaign Spending Commission people. With Bob
Watada retiring this summer, a new Director
will be appointed and so a reorganization is in the wings anyway.
(4) Claim:
"Massachusetts: Election Subsidy Program Tried and Failed"
In her rush to tar Clean Elections, Zimmerman lays
out a garbled version of political intrigues which occurred in Massachusetts a
few years back. She claims that voters tried the system, found it full of corruption,
and rejected it.
FACTS:
In 1998, by a 67% to 33% binding vote, Massachusetts' voters overcame their
legislators inactions on campaign reform by adopting a Clean Elections law. The
ballot question won in every town and city with the help of over 3,000 campaign
volunteers. After that, the story becomes convoluted, with the legislature
never fully funding the voter-mandated Clean Elections system, and then after
many political battles and a phony "advisory" poll, killing the newborn
program.
In 2002, the Massachusetts Legislature, led by
House Speaker Tom Finneran, refused to release $23 million the state had set
aside for implementing the Massachusetts Clean Elections law, including
voluntary donations individuals had made from their state income tax filings.
Finneran is known as being one of Massachusetts' most powerful power-brokers,
tightly connected with lobbyists and patronage.
Finneran is famed for his ability to raise hundreds of thousand of
dollars for state candidates in good standing with him, and using his own two campaign accounts to donate
thousands more. [Finneran emerges as
party's weapon, Raphael Lewis, Aug 14,
2004. Boston Globe.]
Some elementary facts: Massachusetts ranks 3rd in
the country in the amount of money spent on lobbying. In 2002, 97% of all incumbents were re-elected , with
winners spending on average twice as much as challengers.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found the
Legislature's refusal to fund the voter-approved law violated the state
constitution and told lawmakers to release the available funds. Speaker Finneran and powerful incumbents
resisted and delayed until late summer — months after the deadline for
candidates to qualify for the system. With the funding in jeopardy, most Clean
Elections hopefuls switched back to traditional fundraising. Only 10 legislative candidates, and one minor
governor candidate, ran under these harsh conditions in 2002.
The legislative power-brokers also placed a
deceptively worded "advisory question" on the ballot. The Clean Elections opponents then raised
$693,300 from more than 30 companies to run an anti-public funding media
campaign. They outspent the good
government types 10 to 1.
The
money to defeat Clean Elections came from the usual Beacon Hill suspects.
Anheuser-Busch Cos. was in for $30,000, and the Beer Distributors of
Massachusetts Inc. for another $10,000. Raytheon, NStar, Verizon
Communications, and EMC Corp. each kicked in $25,000. The operators of the
Taunton and Wonderland dog tracks each gave $10,000.
The
Fidelitys, Raytheons, and the state’s insurers have also done well in the
Legislature in recent years. `You know the door won't be shut,' says one top
Boston executive who gave to both campaigns.
[Steve
Bailey , Boston Globe 11/12/2002]
As the editors of the Boston Globe
summarized the sordid story (June 12, 2003),
The
Legislature's arrogant refusal to fund the law last year thereby discouraging challengers to their own
jobs was a dark chapter in the state's
political history. Even worse was the Senate action last month, attaching
repeal language to the budget without so much as a roll-call vote.
In sum, powerful Speaker Finneran, his
well-connected legislative allies, and corporate contributors, opposed the
Clean Elections law before its inception, and stonewalled it afterward even
though voters passed it by a 67% margin.
Controlling the Legislature, they crafted a trick question and then ran
a media disinformation campaign. Why did
Finneran's clique do this? Because a
full public funding system would have increased the competition for their jobs,
reduced the power of their corporate special interest friends, and made them
more accountable to the voters.
A similar attack to repeal Clean Elections took
place last year in Arizona, led by big developers, bankers, insurance
companies, and corporate lobbyists. While the effort was defeated, it provoked
Senator McCain to issue the following statement to his fellow Arizonans:
"For years, special interests
and big money have had a negative influence on our local, state and national
elections. Clean Elections changes that. In 1998, you voted for the Clean
Elections Act and restored voter confidence in the electoral process. Clean
Elections works well to overcome the influence of special interests. It gives
Arizonans the power to create good government. Keep supporting Clean
Elections."
There are three lessons to be drawn from these tales.
(1) Zimmerman's "Massachusetts: Election
Subsidy Program Tried and Failed" narrative is profoundly slanted; the real story is "Massachusetts Clean
Elections program killed by legislative powerbrokers and corporate special
interests."
(2) Political powerbrokers will do all they can to
stop Comprehensive Public Funding programs from being enacted, and implemented,
since they increase competition in elections and make representatives more
accountable to the voters, not the lobbyists who fund their campaigns.
(3) It is vital that the funding for Clean
Elections programs be dedicated and protected from the kind of legislative
stonewalling demonstrated in the Massachusetts
instance. "Killing the
appropriations" for even partial public funding programs has occurred in
other states. [See: The Day After
Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the American States, Michael Malbin and Thomas Gais, 1998.
Rockefeller Press, Albany NY]
Hopefully
Hawaii's Legislators will enact a protected-from- tampering, dedicated funding
mechanism, as contained in the original versions of SB1689 / HB1713, to prevent
this from happening in Hawaii.
(4) CLAIM: "Fraud
Rampant Where Clean Elections Programs Exist"
Zimmerman makes it appear that "massive fraud"
was committed in Massachusetts by many candidates using the Clean Elections
program. She cleverly mixes together
comments from a Massachusetts Office of Political Campaign and Political
Finance staffer about the need to guard against fraud in general, with the
single case of a minor candidate who was in fact discovered and decertified by
the OPCPF.
The OPCPF, which audits all campaign finance
reports and reviews complaints alleging violations of campaign finance law,
filed a complaint against Republican Robert L. Collamore of Springfield, whom
they found submitted forged signatures to the state. He was not only
decertified, but required to pay back all Clean Elections funds received plus
interest, and fined two times the aggregate amount of false contributions
received.
[http://www.mass.gov/ocpf/win03.pdf]
I am told that another Massachusetts minor
candidate was caught falsifying signatures by the Office of Political Campaign
and Political Finance before receiving any funding.
The Hawai`i Comprehensive
Public Funding law contains similar stringent enforcement mechanisms, but
following Arizona's law, treats serious violations as criminal felonies with the ability to remove flagrant violators from
office.
Of course Maine and Arizona have had their
problems, as no system is perfect.
Reporter Paul Carrier of The Maine Sunday Telegram
(12/21/2004) reviewed the campaign-finance reports of the 308 Clean Election
candidates who spent a total of about $2 million running for office in 2004.
The openness of their reporting process allowed him to carry out this
investigative work.
Carrier's research turned up a few illegal
expenditures which appear to be absent of malice, since many of these
candidates were complete novices.
Questionable expenditures came to less than 2 percent of the total bill
for Clean Elections,
The
staff of the ethics commission, which does its own periodic review of spending
practices, already has sent letters to a handful of candidates requesting more
information about questionable practices, based on a preliminary review of
finance reports.
Candidates
who spent money inappropriately, such as on personal items, may be asked to
reimburse the state. The ethics commission also has the power to assess
penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, Wayne said, and intentional
violations of the Clean Election Act are a Class E misdemeanor.
But
[Executive Director Jonathan] Wayne cautioned that `most violations are
probably due to ignorance, not a deliberate desire to defraud the system.'
`In
the end, the fact that only a few candidates misspent relatively small amounts
of money is encouraging,' said political scientist Oliver Woshinsky. But he
said `shining a spotlight on campaign spending is beneficial.'
Arizona. Zimmerman seems to have missed an important
scandal in Arizona, where an independent audit carried out for the state's
Clean Elections Commission found that one candidate overspent his public
campaign funds by $7,500. The Clean Elections law states that a candidate who
overshoots his spending limit by more than 10 percent shall be removed from
office. Intriguingly, a group of
Republican legislators publicly said that Smith, a fellow GOP lawmaker, should
be removed from the state Legislature for his violations.
"If
I read the law correctly, clearly Smith violated the law and the consequences
are that he shall be removed from office," said Rep. Bill Konopnicki,
R-Safford. "Enforcing the law is what we all should be about. Let the
cards fall where they fall."
["Political pressure building to oust Arizona
legislator: Clean Elections audit reveals apparent violations," Chip
Scutari, The Arizona Republic, Jan. 28, 2005]
Two things immediately stand out in this case which
showcase important differences between Hawai`i's present procedures and
Arizona's. First, Arizona systematically
audits their campaign reports. Hawai`i does not. Second, their enforcement has teeth — in
contrast to the slap-on-the wrist sentences handed out by our own courts for
the flagrant violations of Hawai`i's campaign spending laws uncovered by our
state Campaign Spending Commission during the last two years.
Arizona will also be fine tuning their election
laws, including tinkering with the Equalizing Funds formula, and especially how
to deal with independent organizations, or 527s, in the political funding
process. ["Public campaign finance
needs only a tune-up," Arizona Daily Sun,12/28/2004] ["Clean Elections panel seeks
upgrades," Autumn Southard, Arizona Daily Star, 11/28/2004] Maine's Ethic Commission does this
automatically.
(5) ZIMMERMAN'S flagrant
distortion of testimony
Zimmerman's lack of journalistic integrity shows up
stunningly in how she selective quotes one testifier at the Senate Judiciary
hearing, turning her position around 180 degrees.
Zimmerman writes:
Dorothy Cornell, a former resident of Maine where
such a program is in place, warned in her testimony at the Hawaii State
Legislature of "unintended consequences," which Maine experienced
once the "clean elections" bill passed, including "nepotism,
fraud and unethical behavior."
Here is Ms. Cornell’s actual statement:
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR
OF SB 1689
Public Hearing
Room 229 before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs
Chair Hanabusa:
I gave testimony before this Committee last year about the
experience of Maine with `unintended consequences' of the Public Funding bill.
This year I would like to talk about the experience of Maine with `Clean
Election' candidates who used the money in an unethical manner.
There were several, and the categories of mis-use were
nepotism and unsuitable expenditures. Unlike the `unintended consequences'
which were primarily clever but legal fraud schemes, corrected by changes to
the law, the misuse of public campaign money in 2004 was ignorance by
first-time candidates, already covered by ethics laws.
It would probably be a good idea to provide educational
materials for candidates who select the public financing option so they are
aware of the various legal constraints on the expenditure of campaign funds.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Dorothy I. Cornell
Ms. Cornell is definitely not from Maine, and has
no first-hand knowledge of Maine's events except for what she reads, or heard
from visiting Maine legislators. The
point of Cornell's testimony — which states at the top "TESTIMONY IN FAVOR
OF SB 1689" — is obviously the final paragraph, which calls for providing "educational
materials for candidates who select the public financing option so they are
aware of the various legal constraints on the expenditure of campaign funds."
Zimmerman cleverly extracts a few hot-button words
from Cornell's references to past problems, while disregarding Cornell’s statements
that they were "corrected by changes to the law," and that the
recent minor instances were caused by "ignorance by first-time
candidates, already covered by ethics laws."
Given this flagrant example of selective misquoting
in her rush to make a point, one can only wonder about the accuracy of
Zimmerman's other citations.
Conclusion
The vast majority of citizens believe that entrenched
interests hold too much power over Congress and their own Legislatures, but
they also are terribly cynical about the ability of average peoples to change
this money-driven system. They correctly
read the intentions of powerbrokers and large funders to preserve their
advantages under the present system of campaign financing, and sabotage any
meaningful "reforms."
That's why Comprehensive Public Funding is so
difficult to pull off, as the Massachusetts case shows. Keepers of the status-quo, and those with
access to corporate pocketbooks, don't
want you to know there is an alternative campaign funding option in place --
and working well indeed, in Maine,
Arizona and North Carolina – and spread disinformation.
The public supports the new public financing option. In Maine
this year, nearly 80 percent of state candidates ran taking no private funds,
and 91% of them won their races. In
Arizona, with fewer election cycles under its belt, 55% of the 157 candidates
ran under the Clean system option, with Clean-funded and traditional candidates
winning about evenly. Challengers and incumbents, Republicans and Democrats,
have embraced the idea of running without taking any special interest money, and
winning.
In 2002, Arizona's voters donated more than 90,000
five dollar contributions directly to candidates during the campaign qualifying
periods. More than 650,000 taxpayers voted with their tax dollars to support
Clean Elections by choosing to use the income tax check off. A poll taken by the Arizona Republic
newspaper found 64% of Arizona citizens expressed support for their state's
full-public funding system.
The idea of voter-owned-elections is spreading to
other states. New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina and Vermont now provide
funding for certain state races. Four other states saw Clean Election bills
pass legislative committees, and Connecticut and California are each likely to
pass public financing laws this coming year.
In North Carolina, judges actually run for their
positions, and for first time in 2004, could use a Clean Elections program. Two Supreme Court races, and two of the three
Court of Appeals seats, were won by candidates who ran with public financing.
OFFICE HOLDERS LIKE THE NEW SYSTEM TOO. A
surprising number of incumbents are choosing to run as publicly funded
candidates.
The
most commonly cited reason is a desire to avoid the ethical conflicts that
accompany large campaign contributions. But many incumbents have found that
running clean provides additional benefits. Several successful fundraisers who
have opted to run clean campaigns -- and accept less money than they could have
raised privately —
are doing so simply to save time....
[The Clean Election system] also benefits their constituents by allowing
them to concentrate more closely on issues that affect their district."
["Clean Money in Maine," Joshua Green, American
Prospect, Vol 11, issue 21, Sept 2000.]
Party
partisans also find public
financing helps them promote party's issues in districts where strong and
well-funded incumbents seem invincible.
In heavily partisan districts, one usually sees only token or
inexperienced opponents running only token campaigns. Comprehensive Public Funding allows viable
candidates -- who can gather 200-300 $5 Qualifying contributions from voters in
their district -- the opportunity to
seriously challenge powerful incumbents, and change the shape of the issue debate.
The beauty — and challenge to passing — of a
voter-owned-elections system is that it changes the rules. It severs the long reach of special interest
lobbyists intruding into the legislative process. Under this new system, lawmakers are beholden
not to the PACS or well-heeled lobbyists, but exclusively to the voters who
elected them and financed their campaigns.
-------------------------------------
Ira Rohter serves as President for the citizen
advocacy group Hawaii Clean Elections, and is an Associate Professor of
Political Science at the University of Hawaii – Manoa.
-------------------------------------