Friday, October 10, 2003
Here's a commentary I wrote recently on why Iowa should adopt a recall process.
Iowa Should Join the Recall Circus
California was the laughing stock of America for the past two months as child-actor Gary Coleman and pornographer Larry Flynt vied to replace Gray Davis as Governor. But voters in the Golden State have had the last laugh, conducting a sober statewide discussion and making the recall process work reasonably well.
It was hard for outsiders to take the recall seriously, but Californians did just that. Candidates debated issues from many points of view. With diverse choices, voters turned out to the polls in higher numbers than during the last statewide election.
Some political pundits are now worried that this populist “circus” could spread like prairie-fire to other states. They complain that California’s recall process doesn’t require any criminal action or misconduct. A California Governor can be recalled if a majority of voters don’t want him or her in office, whatever the reason. But can anyone who believes in democracy really think that citizens should be subjected to an administration that a majority of them oppose, whether or not there happens to be a regularly scheduled election?
Californians reacted to a political regime that left them few choices. Wealthy special interests dominate who wins the primaries of both major parties, leaving voters to choose between the lesser of two evils. Politicians have refused to pass campaign finance reform, so citizens responded with the one tool left.
California is the world’s fifth largest economy. Our Silicon Valley created the internet revolution, our Hollywood entertains the world, and our Central Valley farms feed America. We have our problems, as does Iowa, but on the whole we’ll come out of this recall a stronger democracy.
So, rather than making California the butt of your jokes, Iowa would do well to establish the recall process itself. Whether or not recalls succeed, they provide as a useful reminder to elected officials that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around.
But, there are several lessons Iowa could learn from California’s experience.
First, big money played too large a role. The recall would not have qualified without $2 million from one man to gather 900,000 signatures. But, this does not diminish the 700,000 signatures that recall organizers gathered through volunteer efforts. Indian tribes and corporations also distorted the recall campaign with a flood of campaign spending. A sound process should have low enough signature thresholds to be met by volunteers and set low limits on contributions and spending for and against the recall and by each replacement candidate.
Second, it was too easy for Arnold Schwartzenegger to skip debates. Participation in debates should be a mandatory part of the ballot access process, just as gathering signatures and paying filing fees are. Candidates who won’t defend their positions in public debate should be free to run, but they should do so as write in candidates.
Third, use run-off elections. California successfully narrowed its 135 candidates to 4 major contenders as many serious candidates dropped out of the race after polls showed they had no real chance of winning. The ultraconservative Tom McClintock and Green candidate Peter Cameo stayed in, and they did not wind up spoiling the election. When candidates drop out, their supporters can’t demonstrate their preferences on election day. Better to let all candidates stay in the race, but use a runoff to choose between the top two candidates. Better yet would be to use Instant Runoff Voting, which accomplished the same thing in one election by letting voters rank candidates in order of their preference.
And while Iowa is discussing the recall process, consider adopting the citizens initiative and referendum while you’re at it. It will drive the political elites nuts, but then isn’t that what democracy is all about in the first place?
Iowa Should Join the Recall Circus
California was the laughing stock of America for the past two months as child-actor Gary Coleman and pornographer Larry Flynt vied to replace Gray Davis as Governor. But voters in the Golden State have had the last laugh, conducting a sober statewide discussion and making the recall process work reasonably well.
It was hard for outsiders to take the recall seriously, but Californians did just that. Candidates debated issues from many points of view. With diverse choices, voters turned out to the polls in higher numbers than during the last statewide election.
Some political pundits are now worried that this populist “circus” could spread like prairie-fire to other states. They complain that California’s recall process doesn’t require any criminal action or misconduct. A California Governor can be recalled if a majority of voters don’t want him or her in office, whatever the reason. But can anyone who believes in democracy really think that citizens should be subjected to an administration that a majority of them oppose, whether or not there happens to be a regularly scheduled election?
Californians reacted to a political regime that left them few choices. Wealthy special interests dominate who wins the primaries of both major parties, leaving voters to choose between the lesser of two evils. Politicians have refused to pass campaign finance reform, so citizens responded with the one tool left.
California is the world’s fifth largest economy. Our Silicon Valley created the internet revolution, our Hollywood entertains the world, and our Central Valley farms feed America. We have our problems, as does Iowa, but on the whole we’ll come out of this recall a stronger democracy.
So, rather than making California the butt of your jokes, Iowa would do well to establish the recall process itself. Whether or not recalls succeed, they provide as a useful reminder to elected officials that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around.
But, there are several lessons Iowa could learn from California’s experience.
First, big money played too large a role. The recall would not have qualified without $2 million from one man to gather 900,000 signatures. But, this does not diminish the 700,000 signatures that recall organizers gathered through volunteer efforts. Indian tribes and corporations also distorted the recall campaign with a flood of campaign spending. A sound process should have low enough signature thresholds to be met by volunteers and set low limits on contributions and spending for and against the recall and by each replacement candidate.
Second, it was too easy for Arnold Schwartzenegger to skip debates. Participation in debates should be a mandatory part of the ballot access process, just as gathering signatures and paying filing fees are. Candidates who won’t defend their positions in public debate should be free to run, but they should do so as write in candidates.
Third, use run-off elections. California successfully narrowed its 135 candidates to 4 major contenders as many serious candidates dropped out of the race after polls showed they had no real chance of winning. The ultraconservative Tom McClintock and Green candidate Peter Cameo stayed in, and they did not wind up spoiling the election. When candidates drop out, their supporters can’t demonstrate their preferences on election day. Better to let all candidates stay in the race, but use a runoff to choose between the top two candidates. Better yet would be to use Instant Runoff Voting, which accomplished the same thing in one election by letting voters rank candidates in order of their preference.
And while Iowa is discussing the recall process, consider adopting the citizens initiative and referendum while you’re at it. It will drive the political elites nuts, but then isn’t that what democracy is all about in the first place?
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Challenging Corporate Control
I'll be speaking at a the Empowering Democracy Conference tomorrow. The conference aims to give citizens the tools they need to ensure that corporations are good neighbors that live up to their community obligations. I'll be doing a workshop on how to generate media attention around corporate activity. The conference in in Oakand, California and directions can be found here.
I'll be speaking at a the Empowering Democracy Conference tomorrow. The conference aims to give citizens the tools they need to ensure that corporations are good neighbors that live up to their community obligations. I'll be doing a workshop on how to generate media attention around corporate activity. The conference in in Oakand, California and directions can be found here.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
A Never Ending Battle
In 1996, Alaska citizens circulated a ballot measure for campaign finance reform. The politicians saw this coming, and instead decided to pass a weaker version. Then, fat cats challenged the new law in court. The courts largely upheld the law, including the toughest limits on out of state contributions in the country. But then, last year, the politicians decided they'd had enough and they voted to double the limits on the money they can raise from big donors. So now, the same citizens groups are at it again, working to gather 23,000 signatures by January 12 in order to qualify a new ballot measure for the 2004 election. If anything, given the past experience, the new citizen measure may not be tough enough. More details are available here.
In 1996, Alaska citizens circulated a ballot measure for campaign finance reform. The politicians saw this coming, and instead decided to pass a weaker version. Then, fat cats challenged the new law in court. The courts largely upheld the law, including the toughest limits on out of state contributions in the country. But then, last year, the politicians decided they'd had enough and they voted to double the limits on the money they can raise from big donors. So now, the same citizens groups are at it again, working to gather 23,000 signatures by January 12 in order to qualify a new ballot measure for the 2004 election. If anything, given the past experience, the new citizen measure may not be tough enough. More details are available here.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Phony Reform May Do Little Good
About a year and a half ago, the politicians in Washington DC congratulated themselves on passing what they called the toughest campaign finance reform bill in a generation. It was called the McCain-Feingold bill and it was supposed to ban soft money -- the huge checks that corporations. labor unions, and rich folks gave to political parties. The beltway good government groups gushed praise on the politicians for finally cleaning up their act.
Well, maybe nobody looked at the fine print, but it sure looks like the bill isn't going to ban soft money after all. Here's a story from the Charolotte Observer which says that many state political parties will continue to be able to raise soft money. So, rather than banning it, the McCain-Feingold law may just shift it from the federal parties to the state parties.
This is something that citizens should keep a close eye on. If we can't count on the politicians and the good government groups to pass meaningful regulations when they say they're passing reform, then citizens will have to get involved themselves rather than leaving this up to others.
About a year and a half ago, the politicians in Washington DC congratulated themselves on passing what they called the toughest campaign finance reform bill in a generation. It was called the McCain-Feingold bill and it was supposed to ban soft money -- the huge checks that corporations. labor unions, and rich folks gave to political parties. The beltway good government groups gushed praise on the politicians for finally cleaning up their act.
Well, maybe nobody looked at the fine print, but it sure looks like the bill isn't going to ban soft money after all. Here's a story from the Charolotte Observer which says that many state political parties will continue to be able to raise soft money. So, rather than banning it, the McCain-Feingold law may just shift it from the federal parties to the state parties.
This is something that citizens should keep a close eye on. If we can't count on the politicians and the good government groups to pass meaningful regulations when they say they're passing reform, then citizens will have to get involved themselves rather than leaving this up to others.
Monday, October 06, 2003
In Memory of One of Us
Fred Tuttle, a regular American who briefly brought some sanity and humor to Vermont politics, died over the weeked. Mr. Tuttle was a dairy farmer who ran against Jack McMullen in the Republican primary for US Senate in 1998. McMullen was a millionaire carpetbagger who had moved into Vermont from Massachusetts to see if he could buy himself a U.S. Senate seat. Tuttle launched his campaign with a $9 newspaper ad, and in the end spent only $251, or $1 for each of town in Vermont. He won with 54% of the vote, but then actually endorsed his Democratic opponent for the general election, saying he was more qualified to be Senator.
In his concession speach, Tuttle said "I've had the time of my life. But tomorrow, I've got to go dig my potatoes. So, good night, and God bless.''
See more details in this AP Story.
Here's an old CNN story about Fred's 1998 campaign.
Fred serves as an inspiration for the rest of us, showing what one person can do if you put your mind to it.
Fred Tuttle, a regular American who briefly brought some sanity and humor to Vermont politics, died over the weeked. Mr. Tuttle was a dairy farmer who ran against Jack McMullen in the Republican primary for US Senate in 1998. McMullen was a millionaire carpetbagger who had moved into Vermont from Massachusetts to see if he could buy himself a U.S. Senate seat. Tuttle launched his campaign with a $9 newspaper ad, and in the end spent only $251, or $1 for each of town in Vermont. He won with 54% of the vote, but then actually endorsed his Democratic opponent for the general election, saying he was more qualified to be Senator.
In his concession speach, Tuttle said "I've had the time of my life. But tomorrow, I've got to go dig my potatoes. So, good night, and God bless.''
See more details in this AP Story.
Here's an old CNN story about Fred's 1998 campaign.
Fred serves as an inspiration for the rest of us, showing what one person can do if you put your mind to it.
