Cleaning Up Elections
The terrain of the battle for campaign finance
reform has now shifted to the House of Representatives and, less
noticed but more important, to the Massachusetts legislature. Two
approaches to reform are at issue. One limits the ways that private
money can be given and spent in elections; the other holds that
replacing big donations with public financing is the only way to
cleanse a rotten system.
In the House, reformers are
collecting signatures on a discharge petition that would force a
floor debate and a vote on the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill,
which the GOP leadership buried in the last session. They need 218
signatures; Common Cause had tallied 205 signatures on the petition,
including fifteen Republicans.
House passage of
Shays-Meehan would be a significant victory for Congressional
reformers, but it will not win the war against the big money
corrupting the system. Like McCain-Feingold, its Senate counterpart,
Shays-Meehan bans soft money, but it also doubles the amount of
hard-money contributions wealthy special interests can make. US PIRG
reports that had these changes been in effect for the 2000 elections,
the top 144 lobbying firms in Washington would have been prevented
from giving $1.4 million in soft money, but they could have legally
given $8.7 million more in hard money.
The only way to
achieve meaningful campaign finance reform is through full public
financing. That's why Massachusetts, where a Clean Elections bill is
currently bottled up in the legislature, is so important. Like
similar legislation already implemented in Maine, Arizona and
Vermont, Clean Elections would enable public officials to run fully
funded, viable campaigns for office without having to depend on
private donors to any significant degree. Under Clean Elections laws,
candidates who agree to raise little to no private money and abide by
strict spending limits can qualify for equal grants of full public
financing for their campaigns. Additional matching funds are given if
a participating candidate faces a high-spending opponent. Prospective
candidates qualify by collecting a fairly large number of very small
(around $5) contributions. The laws free them from the private money
chase and make reaching out to voters on the issues and organizing a
grassroots base more important than fundraising ability. In short,
democracy the way it ought to be.
In 1998 Massachusetts
voters passed a Clean Elections initiative by a two-to-one margin.
But Thomas Finneran, the Democratic state House speaker, has used
various maneuvers to prevent the law from going into effect for the
2002 election. Finneran's machinations have rallied reform-minded
citizens to the law's defense. Pressure from grassroots activists led
by Mass Voters for Clean Elections has been so intense that several
lawmakers were compelled to switch their positions after a vote this
past spring in the state House that would have stripped the law of
its funding. Later, the state Senate overwhelmingly backed a
countermeasure that fully funds the system. Now the matter is bottled
up in a conference committee, while Republican Governor Jane Swift
has tried to force the issue by including full funding for Clean
Elections in an interim state budget and, we hope, will continue to
do so.
On August 1 candidates for statewide office started
the process of collecting the 6,000 contributions (of no more than
$100 each) the law says they must have to qualify for a base-level
grant of $1.6 million for the primary. Lower-level and legislative
candidates are seeking to "run clean" as well. But the vision of a
people-driven democracy won't be realized in Massachusetts until
Finneran relents in his opposition to a Clean Elections law. Readers
can help by going to the website www. massvoters.org or by calling
Finneran's office at (617) 722-2500. A March for Democracy, from
Lexington to Boston, is planned for September 16.
Just as
woman suffrage started with laws passed in the states and led to the
Nineteenth Amendment, the Clean Elections movement is bubbling up
from the states. After four pioneering states gave women the vote, it
took another twenty years before woman suffrage was national. Let's
hope it won't take that long for Clean Elections to become the law of
the land.
Subscriber Log In:
Subscribe Now!
The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article—and every article published since for the past five years—right now.
There's no obligation—try The Nation for four weeks free.
If you like this article, consider making a donation.
Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.
