We May Need Campaign Finance Reform
This Is How to Get Elected Now
Successful candidates communicate with voters. That communication costs money. Some Americans believe that this money can corrupt candidates and drive those candidates to serve the interests of the biggest donors rather than the public good. To stop this corruption, republicans and democrats have made campaign finance laws.
On March 27, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold law). Why then did Bush, Dean and Kerry in 2004 opt out of using the public funds that the McCain-Feingold law provides?
Congress would have to spend $6 per citizen per year to publicly fund every election for the House, the Senate, and the White House. The cost was more than $200 last year, considering all the private money that the candidates spent. Most of this money came from special interests, such as large companies that wanted their candidates to do something for the company, not necessarily for the public good. Why did we spend $200 for a value of just $6? We spent $200 for each citizen because we buy gasoline and other products from industries that lobby candidates. Citizens pay for elections if private money pays for elections or if public money pays.
Some of us believe that our interests get little consideration from candidates because the candidates are busy raising money rather than attending to our interests.
Why don’t candidates use public funds? Are the campaign finance laws so full of loopholes that they cannot stop corruption? Do the candidates need more money to compete than the public funds provide? Are the accounting forms too much work for the candidates?
Seven states and two cities have answered these questions. Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont) and two cities (Albuquerque and Portland) pay for their elections with public funds. Those state and city governments found the money to pay for elections because the people wanted to stop election corruption and start clean elections.
Campaign finance reform became law for state candidates of Arizona in 1998. Nearly every statewide candidate participated. The number of voters contributing to campaigns (limited to $5 contributions) tripled. Voter turnout and voter choice increased. The number of minority candidates tripled. Twice as many senate races had opposing candidates rather than just one candidate running.
Did these laws work in Arizona? You decide. 79% of the candidates with more money won in 1998. 2% of the candidates with more money won in 2002. For 98% of the races, all candidates had equal funding.
If the people of Idaho want clean elections, then our legislature could find the funds just as the seven other states have. Jeff Siddoway is our state senator (district 35). What is his position on campaign finance reform? In 2002, Mike Simpson, Larry Craig, and Mike Crapo voted Nay for campaign finance reform. Why did they vote against the McCain Feingold law?
What is your position on campaign finance reform?
Here is mine: The system we have now forces the most ethical of our candidates to take money from big business and special interests to get elected. They are forced to accept money from special interests even if they don't want to take this money. This system is unfair to the Idaho senators and representatives, is unfair to our federal government senators and representatives, and is unfair to us.
If you think gasoline costs too much, the current campaign finance system hurts you because it encourages a system where oil companies can buy energy legislation. If you like the Internet the way it is, the current campaign finance system hurts you because it creates a political situation in Washington where telecom companies can manipulate regulatory agencies. If you want health care for you and for everybody else, the current campaign finance system is an obstacle because it lets the health industry buy enough lawmakers to stop reform. Can you think of other obstacles that our current system of campaign finance creates?
Campaign finance reform could encourage qualified Americans of any background or point of view to seek public office, regardless of the money they have or the money they can get at campaign dinners or from corporate donations. This reform could eliminate the conflicts of interest created by the private financing of campaigns of our public officials. The point of view of all Americans could guide public policy decisions, whether they contribute or do not contribute to the campaigns of elected officials. Elected officials could be attending to the needs of constituents and not attending to meetings with large donors. Dealing with the most pressing issues of the day will be in public discussions. This could invigorate public participation in our democracy.
Submitted by Calvin Leman