Fair Elections Now (Or a Donor Strike?)

At this perilous moment, as we face key battles on the economic crisis, climate change, healthcare, and a slew of other issues, it's important to recognize that these fights will not be settled in one fell swoop this year or next, but will play out over the coming decade or more. Working against bold, progressive solutions on all of these issues is a constant problem: big money donors hold sway, shifting the policy debate and shafting the common good. Only through real campaign reform will we level the playing field so that the voices of ordinary people are heard loud and clear inside the Beltway.

That's why it's so important that the Fair Elections Now Act has been introduced in both the House and Senate with bipartisan support, and that a savvy coalition is rallying public support for it, including: Change Congress, Public Campaign, Common Cause, Public Citizen, US PIRG, Brennan Center for Justice, Americans for Campaign Reform, MoveOn, and others.

Change Congress -- an organization launched by Lawrence Lessig and Joe Trippi to reduce the influence of money in politics -- has taken the lead on organizing an online strategy. Lessig said, "My view is it's finally time for us to do what Teddy Roosevelt suggested we do about 102 years ago, which is to bring about an election system where what's driving the results is fear about how voters in the district will respond, rather than fear about how the funders will respond."

The bill provides qualified candidates the opportunity to run with a mixture of small-dollar contributions and public money. Candidates who raise a large number of small contributions ($100 or less) from their home state qualify for a set amount of public money that will make them competitive. If the candidate chooses, he or she can continue to raise small donations and receive a 4:1 match -- up to a specified cap -- in order to compete on a level playing field with wealthy, self-financed candidates and those raising money in the traditional way. There are also resources in the bill for media time when candidates get to the general election. In determining the caps and amounts of money required to make candidates competitive, advocates did some good research on how states with these kinds of laws have worked and also examined the fundraising stats of past Congressional races.

This brand of public financing is different from campaign finance reforms that simply attempt to regulate the flow of money in the political process. Candidates participating in this system must rely exclusively on small donors. By matching small donations with public funds, it's a way of putting political clout in the hands of ordinary people.

This path creates a new world of possibility for up-from-the-grassroots political organizing and fresh-faced candidates. It plays to the strengths of community organizers and membership based organizations and could be a critical building block for progressive power across the country. David Donnelly, the national campaigns director for Public Campaign who has worked on this issue for decades, said that the bill "provides enough money for [participating] candidates to be competitive in just about every single race in the country."

The coalition is using the current two-week recess to get additional cosponsors for the House and Senate bills. One key strategy to push for cosponsorship is through demonstrating the electoral cost of a member's failure to support the bill. That's largely accomplished through Change Congress' Donor Strike.

The Donor Strike allows individuals to pledge to withhold money from any politician who doesn't cosponsor the Fair Elections bill. Based on the previous election cycle, the withholdings by donors taking the pledge has now crossed the $1.1 million mark, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein the biggest loser at $288,000.

Change Congress also provides talking points for citizens to lobby members of Congress and report their results. In the past week, 2100 people have made calls using that tool. Other coalition partners have made hundreds or even thousands of calls.

"The challenge is to keep that drumbeat up," said Adam Green, CEO of Change Congress and former director of strategic campaigns at MoveOn.org. "During high energy moments on other fights in the news are the times to remind people that we can solve the systemic underlying issue."

As an example, Green points to the story Huffington Post broke in January on a conference call between AIG, Bank of America and other corporate execs where they discussed funneling millions of dollars to Senate Republicans in order to influence votes on the Employee Free Choice Act.

"Thousands of people signed up for the donor strike," Green said. "The dots were connected for them and they understood the need to solve the underlying systemic problem [which is] that people in congress who are supposed to be making laws that govern special interests are also trapped in a system that forces them to beg special interests for campaign cash."

Donnelly agreed. "From healthcare, to the energy economy, to more stringent regulations on financial sector… these fights are going to be decided over the next 10 years, and the question in my mind is on what playing field will those decisions be made?"

"We need to make sure as we're making these major decisions in Congress that [Members] are not a) distracted by fundraising and b) raising money from the very people that we often see as part of the problem," Lessig said.

This kind of public finance model has already proven effective in Maine, Arizona and Connecticut. (According to Green, in Connecticut 4 out of 5 candidates opted-in, and over 80 percent of newly elected legislators participated in it as well.). In polls by both Republican and Democratic pollsters, over 70 percent of the public supported the elements of the federal bill.

With senior Democratic leaders at the helm of the public financing bill -- House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larsen and Majority Whip Dick Durbin are both original cosponsors, and President Obama cosponsored the bill as a Senator -- we are in a unique position to win this key reform. Hearings are expected on the bill as early as mid-May, so now is the time to join the donor strike, call your representatives and tell them to cosponsor the bill.

The faster we can win real reforms that empower the political voice of ordinary people, the more successful we'll be in achieving progressive solutions for the major issues of our time.

Comments (15)

1. "In polls by both Republican and Democratic pollsters, over 70 percent of the public supported the elements of the federal bill."

   I think we're going to learn rather rapidly here on this thread that "70% of Americans are liberals who want to silence free speech!"

   BTW, I think public financing is the domestic policy equivalent of nuclear disarmament to foreign policy. Great to talk about...rare to get fully implemented.

   Posted by Mask at 04/09/2009 @ 3:12pm

2. I suspect that much may change fundamentally in the long haul including how we finance elections in the U.S., and I certainly don't disagree with the importance of and need for a completely revamped elections financing process. By the same token I think that progressives and smart, on point conservatives need to be synchronizing their efforts to revamp Barack Obama's badly misguided big bank bailout plan.

   I'd suggest that in support of that immediate and urgent need progressive organizations muct create a concerted effort to get their vectors aligned so to speak, and push for organized resistance to Obama's suicidal alignment with the Wall Street power brokers.

   There has been some important voices breaking out on this message of late including George Soros, Paul Krugman (Newsweek cover last week), and William K. Black on Moyers last Friday.

   Must see video of Bill Black on Moyers:

   tinyurl.com/clrjao

   Moyers/Winship Counterpunch essay:

   tinyurl.com/cxzbuz

   Excerpt:

   Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "is covering up," Black said. "Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion - a trillion is a thousand billion - $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have massive losses, and that they're fine...

   "They're scared to death of a collapse......."

   End quote.

   Well, I suggest that The Nation magazine and other progressive organizations need to pick up our game right now before a final collapse and associated chaos that will overwhelm any attempts to make good on a progressive agenda.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/09/2009 @ 4:23pm

3. In the interest of helping us progressives --as well as the (fairly rare, unfortunately) bright, principled conservatives-- to sharpen our focus in these trying times here is a post on the issue that takes position number two on the list --right after the need to realign the big bank bailout priorities.

   Glenn Greenwald and a couple of Keith Olbermann snippets from this past Tuesday night:

   tinyurl.com/dxkzv7

   It's encouraging that Keith Olbermann is on fire on the Obama versus the constitution issue. It doesn't get much more fundamental than that.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/09/2009 @ 5:25pm

4. which candidate in the last election lied about the promise to use public campaign funds and raised more corporate money than any candidate in history?

   hint: O

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/09/2009 @ 6:39pm

5. Why would the Democratic Party, a populist party, starve it's own of campaign funds to prove a point while the silver spoon crowd laughs all the way to the bank? They don't give a damn about donor strikes or small contributions, we do. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Can we please stick to real solutions? This kind of thing creates a back round noise that clutters genuine efforts to secure a more democratic process.

   Posted by Milhaus at 04/09/2009 @ 6:53pm

6. Excellent post!

   Posted by ttr at 04/09/2009 @ 10:41pm

7. Katrina, Thank you! Something has to be done because as a general rule, "we, the people" are an afterthought by our own government.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/10/2009 @ 02:46am

8. The legal bribery must stop.

   If politicians were elected by voters instead of big donor money, they would not be so likely to look the other way or actually assist when banks, investment banks and insurance companies over-leverage themselves. Politicians would not be so likely to repeal regulations like the Glass-Steagall act. Politicians would not be so likely to fail to investigate fraud within the banking system. Politicians would not be so likely to provide billions (trillions) in taxpayer money to perpetrators who get bonuses despite massive losses caused by their greed and/or incompetence.

   And this is just the beginning of what politicians would not be so likely to do if they were no longer being legally bribed by special interests.

   Looking Upstream

   A man was standing beside a stream when he saw a baby struggling in the water. Without a thought he jumped in and saved it. No sooner had he placed it gently on the shore than he saw another and jumped in to save it, then another and another. Totally focused on saving babies, he never thought to look upstream to answer the obvious question: Where were the babies coming from, and how did they get in the water?

   Anonymous (Quoted in David Korten: Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth)

   Posted by JFH at 04/10/2009 @ 10:34am

9. It's an interesting attempt by DP shills to derail real campaign finance reform. Just like UFPJ and MoveOn killed the antiwar movement, democrat operatives like Trippi and Green will do their best destroy finance reform at the behest of their big money bundler friends. Truly, this is change you can believe in.

   Posted by AlanSmithee at 04/10/2009 @ 2:34pm

10. "Which candidate in the last election lied about the promise to use public campaign funds and raised more corporate money than any candidate in history?"

    MANY candidates have lied about their campaign funding, and MANY MORE have broken their promises. More than you can shake a stick at, "antisocialist."

    But only ONE of these promise-breaking politicians actually raised more money* than any other candidate in history. That was Barack Obama.

    (*I quibble with your assertion that this was CORPORATE money, "antisocialist." You'll have to do some itemizing to convince me of that.)

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/11/2009 @ 6:44pm

11. One of the most hopeful writings in a long time since it states the way to threaten incumbents - "no more $ from me." Of course my small $50 or $100 threat doesn't compare to the Corporations $, but if enough folks in a district sign on to the Donor Strike, that number may just might scare the incumbent to pay attention to the little voter. There is no doubt in my mind that boycotting the incumbents by this method is the way to go.

    Posted by bnerin at 04/11/2009 @ 9:51pm

12. Great suggestions, but what do the rest of the multimillionaires and billionaires think? Because that's who gets to decide. The rest of us just work here (well, those lucky enough to have work).

    Posted by Citizen54 at 04/12/2009 @ 5:13pm

13. Taxpayer-financed political campaigns are a failed idea, contrary to what Ms. Vanden Huevel says here.

    First, this bill is a huge benefit to incumbents and celebrity candidates, who have the resources and name ID to qualify for huge taxpayer bailouts of their campaigns. Failing that, candidates who want to participate will have to rely on large and well-organized interest groups to raise the needed small contribution. This is reform?

    Second, the whole idea that contributions buy votes is absurd. While it's obviously not a popular idea here at The Nation, there is a school of thought called "free market economics." Are you really surprised that a group of candidates professing support for "free markets" or at least business interests would then go on to lower taxes and pass Glass-Steagall? It may perplex and even enrage you, but there are Americans who believe in such things, and in the 1980s they managed to elect a president who seemed to support such things, same with Congress between 1994 - 2006. To pretend that many "ordinary" Americans didn't want such policies is absurd.

    It should be noted that the only measure of "success" in the states given is the number of candidates willing to dip their hands into the public till to fund their ads and consultants. I wonder why she didn't tout dramatically improved government policies in Arizona and Maine? Perhaps because Arizona is facing the largest budget deficit in the country, and Maine's attempt at healthcare reform has collapsed? Nothing to do with taxpayer financed campaigns, but it certainly doesn't show these welfare for politicians schemes to be transformative in any way.

    Sean Parnell President Center for Competitive Politics http://www.campaignfreedom.org sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

    Posted by seanparnell at 04/13/2009 @ 09:22am

14. Contributions have purchased votes ,voters,and the last beer in the frig.If my candidate will not support this bill,I will give to a candidate who will.Also,we need a cap a total individual contributions which now hovers around $110,000 per election cycle.Click to fec.gov. then Bernard Madoff to demonstrate.The Nation just made my day.

    Posted by worker-bee at 04/14/2009 @ 02:18am

15. Since limits on campaign spending are considered limits on free speech,the only remaining way to reduce the power of the big money is on the contribution side....Since most people do not even check off the $3 box on the 1040,this will be a tough slog. Move On should join.

    Posted by worker-bee at 04/14/2009 @ 02:33am