Reform Worth Rescuing (Campiagn Financing) Dionne--WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701191_pf.html

We are so accustomed to arguing about the decisions politicians make that we often forget about the importance of non-decisions. "Non-decision-making" is a wonderful concept introduced many years ago by the political scientists Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, who spoke of how demands for change "can be suffocated before they are even voiced." Americans are on the verge of making a non-decision about how we pay for presidential campaigns. If Congress does nothing, a system that succeeded in limiting the impact of special-interest money on elections for our highest office will collapse.

Opponents of campaign finance reform love to claim that the money-in-politics problem is insoluble. But the public financing of presidential campaigns, instituted in response to the Watergate scandals of the early 1970s, was that rare reform that accomplished exactly what it was supposed to achieve.
"I see this presidential financing system as one of the few things you can turn to and say: This was well conceived and it actually worked," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who is leading the effort to save the system. The plan worked splendidly through most of the 1980s -- conservatives take note: Ronald Reagan and the movement he led prospered under the system, and the presidential big-money scandals of the Watergate years did not reappear.

But inevitably, the system has fallen victim to inflation (the spending limits are now too low) and the multiplication of loopholes, some created by flawed decisions from the Federal Election Commission.

In 2000 George W. Bush refused the federal funds during the Republican primaries because he knew he could raise and spend far more money than the system permitted. In 2004 both Bush and Democrat John Kerry rejected public funds in the primary period, during which they raised about $500 million.
It's only a matter of time before antiquated limits force presidential candidates to forget about public funds altogether. Big blocks of money, which already have too much influence on Congress (do the recent scandals leave much doubt about that?), would now play a major role in presidential elections, too.

It doesn't have to happen. Feingold, along with veteran House reformers Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), has introduced a bill to update the system and make it relevant to today's prices and politics. The changes they propose are both practical and innovative. To create strong incentives for small-money donors, the bill would establish a 4-1 match for all individual contributions of $200 or less in the primary period. To take into account how the presidential primaries actually work (candidates need to spend far more in the decisive early primaries than in later primaries), state-by-state limits on spending would be scrapped. The primary spending limit would be raised to $150 million, while candidates would receive a flat $100 million for the fall election. The proposal takes into account contingencies that the old system didn't cover. For example, spending limits would be raised for a candidate being massively outspent by an opponent who rejected the system's restrictions.

Many of the worst mistakes in politics are sins of omission. If Congress does nothing, we risk returning to the rules of the pre-Watergate years and a much higher risk of scandal. Feingold, Shays and Meehan have issued a timely warning. Their colleagues should pay attention before a successful reform falls to pieces.

[livvy]

1. Some interesting sites to explore.

http://www.just6dollars.org/
Congress would only have to spend $6 per citizen per year to publicly fund each and every election for the House, the Senate and the White House. When you consider that "pork barrel" projects cost every one of us more than $200 last year alone, it’s no contest.

Think of it. With public funding, wealthy special interests and their hired lobbyists would no longer have a commanding influence over our politics and government. Instead of begging for campaign donations, candidates would spend their time communicating with voters. Once elected, our leaders would be free to focus on our nation's challenges rather than having to worry about financing their next campaign. And there's no doubt that more of our most able leaders would run for federal office when the ability to finance a campaign isn't such a daunting obstacle.

http://www.azclean.org/
Clean Elections Institute, Inc.

2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4010

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-113
8-18-06 CLEAN ELECTIONS WEEK!

August 21st - 25th has been declared National Clean Elections Week. In response to the money scandals involving Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and others, citizens across the country are being asked to call their representatives in Congress to demand support for public financing of elections. MORE

Two links at Election Law @ Moritz. Each has many more links for those interested in research.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part3/campaign.html
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part3/campaign_finance.html

on edit: one more link to links!
http://www.mcfn.org/links.php

[Demeter]

2. Thanks!