Friday, April 16, 2004
Jesse Ventura Might Run for President
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura told the Associated Press yesterday that he is considering a run for the presidency. If he does, it would probably lead to a lot more discussion of reform issues by all the candidates. When he was governor, Ventura championed reform dealing with campaign finance, a unicameral legislature, and establishing a citizens initiative process, although none of these reforms actually passed during his tenure. See details here in the Chicago Sun Times
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura told the Associated Press yesterday that he is considering a run for the presidency. If he does, it would probably lead to a lot more discussion of reform issues by all the candidates. When he was governor, Ventura championed reform dealing with campaign finance, a unicameral legislature, and establishing a citizens initiative process, although none of these reforms actually passed during his tenure. See details here in the Chicago Sun Times
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Let's Get the Media to Give us the real News
As private interests have grown more and more willing to shell out big bucks to help keep their favorite politicians in office, major broadcasting companies have figured out how to cash in on the trend. Their profits from political advertising have gone through the roof while at the same time they have been cutting back on the news coverage that they provide about candidates and issues. (UPDATE: see this press release from Media General where the CEO says ""Strong presidential and primary campaign spending in Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama and Iowa added significantly to our Broadcast results." ) This makes it all the harder for grassroots candidates to compete with those that raise the big bucks.
Well, there's now a window of opportunity to do something about this. The broadcasters are about to get a giant gift from you and me in the form of billions of dollars in public airwaves. The Federal Communications Commission is on the verge of converting our TV programming from analog to digital, which means that broadcasters will be able to put out 6 TV shows over the same frequency that they now put out one. This will mean six times the profits for the broadcasters. And, what are they planning to give back to the public for this free use of our property? Nothin. Nada. Zippo.
On top of this, the broadcasters now want the cable companies to have to carry all of their new channels. This is our chance to demand some small pittance back in return for the profitable use of our airwaves. The original deal we struck with broadcasters was that they could use our property if in return they agreed to put on programming that served the public interest. But, they've shirked this responsibility. In the last election, 40% of local stations didn't even cover local, state, or federal elections. This news coverage could be much more valuable to voters than the negative ads we get buried in (and which the stations profit from), but instead we get fluff and banter between the anchorman and the weatherperson.
After the FCC commissioners get done partying with the broadcasters at a big junket in Las Vegas this weekend, they'll get down to the business of giving out these additional broadcast rights. Now's the time to weigh in with the FCC and tell them that they should ask something back from the broadcasters by requiring them to set minimum standards for covering elections and civic affairs that every broadcaster must fulfill.
You can submit a comment to the FCC for them to consider as they ponder giving away your property for nothing. To do so, follow this link I just did it and it only took about 90 seconds.
You can learn more about this issue from the Alliance for Better Campaigns and Media for Democracy 2004. (These are good folks, even though they take a dig at the 1950 Studebaker. I happen to have one of these in my garage and think quite fondly of it.)
As private interests have grown more and more willing to shell out big bucks to help keep their favorite politicians in office, major broadcasting companies have figured out how to cash in on the trend. Their profits from political advertising have gone through the roof while at the same time they have been cutting back on the news coverage that they provide about candidates and issues. (UPDATE: see this press release from Media General where the CEO says ""Strong presidential and primary campaign spending in Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama and Iowa added significantly to our Broadcast results." ) This makes it all the harder for grassroots candidates to compete with those that raise the big bucks.
Well, there's now a window of opportunity to do something about this. The broadcasters are about to get a giant gift from you and me in the form of billions of dollars in public airwaves. The Federal Communications Commission is on the verge of converting our TV programming from analog to digital, which means that broadcasters will be able to put out 6 TV shows over the same frequency that they now put out one. This will mean six times the profits for the broadcasters. And, what are they planning to give back to the public for this free use of our property? Nothin. Nada. Zippo.
On top of this, the broadcasters now want the cable companies to have to carry all of their new channels. This is our chance to demand some small pittance back in return for the profitable use of our airwaves. The original deal we struck with broadcasters was that they could use our property if in return they agreed to put on programming that served the public interest. But, they've shirked this responsibility. In the last election, 40% of local stations didn't even cover local, state, or federal elections. This news coverage could be much more valuable to voters than the negative ads we get buried in (and which the stations profit from), but instead we get fluff and banter between the anchorman and the weatherperson.
After the FCC commissioners get done partying with the broadcasters at a big junket in Las Vegas this weekend, they'll get down to the business of giving out these additional broadcast rights. Now's the time to weigh in with the FCC and tell them that they should ask something back from the broadcasters by requiring them to set minimum standards for covering elections and civic affairs that every broadcaster must fulfill.
You can submit a comment to the FCC for them to consider as they ponder giving away your property for nothing. To do so, follow this link I just did it and it only took about 90 seconds.
You can learn more about this issue from the Alliance for Better Campaigns and Media for Democracy 2004. (These are good folks, even though they take a dig at the 1950 Studebaker. I happen to have one of these in my garage and think quite fondly of it.)
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Bustamonte Pays Big Fine for Breaking Campaign Finance Laws
California's Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamonte has agreed to pay a fine of $263,000 for violating campaign finance laws during his campaign during the recall of Governor Gray Davis. As noted here in the Jan. 10 Daily Post, Bustamonte had taken contributions that were way over the allowable amounts by funneling them into a ballot committee campaign instead of his campaign for Governor.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission smelled a rat, and belatedly went after Bustamonte. While the fine he agreed to pay was a record amount, he could have been liable for up to $9 million and he's allowed to pay the fine with money he raises from special interests. That's not much of a deterrent for breaking the law, but on the other hand his gross reliance on big contributors was one of the issues that hurt Bustamonte during the election (which he lost to Arnold Schwarzenegger) so in that aspect the voters have already punished him. As noted in the January 27 Daily post, Schwarzenegger too has been busted for breaking campaign finance rules during the campaign. Clearly California needs to get its act together to clarify things for future elections. Details can be found here in the San Diego Union Tribune.
California's Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamonte has agreed to pay a fine of $263,000 for violating campaign finance laws during his campaign during the recall of Governor Gray Davis. As noted here in the Jan. 10 Daily Post, Bustamonte had taken contributions that were way over the allowable amounts by funneling them into a ballot committee campaign instead of his campaign for Governor.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission smelled a rat, and belatedly went after Bustamonte. While the fine he agreed to pay was a record amount, he could have been liable for up to $9 million and he's allowed to pay the fine with money he raises from special interests. That's not much of a deterrent for breaking the law, but on the other hand his gross reliance on big contributors was one of the issues that hurt Bustamonte during the election (which he lost to Arnold Schwarzenegger) so in that aspect the voters have already punished him. As noted in the January 27 Daily post, Schwarzenegger too has been busted for breaking campaign finance rules during the campaign. Clearly California needs to get its act together to clarify things for future elections. Details can be found here in the San Diego Union Tribune.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Limiting Campaign Spending In Wine Country
In the heart of California's Napa Valley, there is a little town called St. Helena. About six thousand people live in the town, that takes up about 4 square miles. It's the sort of place where most people know each other, and political campaigns are low budget affairs. Or, used to be, that is.
Recently, Carolyn Martini, an appropriately named wine executive decided to spend $9,000 on her campaign for the school board. Most candidates typically spend about $1,000 on brochures and a few lawn signs, but Martini hired a campaign consultant, took out full page ads, did a big mailing -- the whole nine yards.
In doing so, Martini broke the rule that sets limits of $3000 for spending on school board elections. In this article in the Napa Valley Register, she complains that nobody told her about the limits. Then she claims they are unconstitutional. The school attorney says they are legal.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory spending limits enacted by the US Congress back in 1976. They said that money is the same thing as free speech, and that there wasn't enough evidence that limiting spending justified limits on free speech. However, many jurisdictions have simply ignored this Supreme Court ruling and kept mandatory spending limits on the books. Albuquerque, New Mexico is perhaps the most prominent example. The state of Vermont enacted mandatory spending limits in 1997 and a federal court of appeals has issued (and then rescinded) a ruling supporting them (stay tuned for the final results.)
In any case, St. Helena may be yet another example where common sense campaign finance reform has worked successfully for years until some big money player decided to break the rules. As the outgoing school board member says, "I don't think local school board elections should be a high-financed proposition. I think anyone should be able to run." Stay tuned to see whether the rules stay in place to keep local elections low budget affairs.
UPDATE: Looks like the money worked. Martini won, according to this news story.
In the heart of California's Napa Valley, there is a little town called St. Helena. About six thousand people live in the town, that takes up about 4 square miles. It's the sort of place where most people know each other, and political campaigns are low budget affairs. Or, used to be, that is.
Recently, Carolyn Martini, an appropriately named wine executive decided to spend $9,000 on her campaign for the school board. Most candidates typically spend about $1,000 on brochures and a few lawn signs, but Martini hired a campaign consultant, took out full page ads, did a big mailing -- the whole nine yards.
In doing so, Martini broke the rule that sets limits of $3000 for spending on school board elections. In this article in the Napa Valley Register, she complains that nobody told her about the limits. Then she claims they are unconstitutional. The school attorney says they are legal.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory spending limits enacted by the US Congress back in 1976. They said that money is the same thing as free speech, and that there wasn't enough evidence that limiting spending justified limits on free speech. However, many jurisdictions have simply ignored this Supreme Court ruling and kept mandatory spending limits on the books. Albuquerque, New Mexico is perhaps the most prominent example. The state of Vermont enacted mandatory spending limits in 1997 and a federal court of appeals has issued (and then rescinded) a ruling supporting them (stay tuned for the final results.)
In any case, St. Helena may be yet another example where common sense campaign finance reform has worked successfully for years until some big money player decided to break the rules. As the outgoing school board member says, "I don't think local school board elections should be a high-financed proposition. I think anyone should be able to run." Stay tuned to see whether the rules stay in place to keep local elections low budget affairs.
UPDATE: Looks like the money worked. Martini won, according to this news story.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Shareholders Ask Corporations to Disclose Political Contributions
Following up on last Friday's post about corporate money in politics, here's an AP story about how some shareholders are asking corporations to tell them what sort of political contributions management is making with their money.
The story talks mostly about how union pension funds are sponsoring these resolutions. Unions already face a fair amount of disclosure requirements, so it seems reasonable that corporations would have to do the same. In fact, the Supreme Court has found that unions are formed for partially political purposes whereas corporations are not.
But, there are actually more folks than the unions involved in these efforts. Similar shareholder resolutions have been filed by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Sierra Club, and several individuals and mutual fund companies. Resolutions often ask the corporation to disclose the total amount of funds it is spending on politics, the policies for encouraging employees to contribute, the business rationale for each contribution, and the management people who were involved in making the contribution.
This disclosure is but a modest step toward getting corporations back to their true purpose in life: making products and making money. If people want to make money, they should invest in corporations. If they want to make a political statement, they should join a political group. But, they shouldn't turn their money-making machines into political machines that overpower other voices in American democracy.
Following up on last Friday's post about corporate money in politics, here's an AP story about how some shareholders are asking corporations to tell them what sort of political contributions management is making with their money.
The story talks mostly about how union pension funds are sponsoring these resolutions. Unions already face a fair amount of disclosure requirements, so it seems reasonable that corporations would have to do the same. In fact, the Supreme Court has found that unions are formed for partially political purposes whereas corporations are not.
But, there are actually more folks than the unions involved in these efforts. Similar shareholder resolutions have been filed by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Sierra Club, and several individuals and mutual fund companies. Resolutions often ask the corporation to disclose the total amount of funds it is spending on politics, the policies for encouraging employees to contribute, the business rationale for each contribution, and the management people who were involved in making the contribution.
This disclosure is but a modest step toward getting corporations back to their true purpose in life: making products and making money. If people want to make money, they should invest in corporations. If they want to make a political statement, they should join a political group. But, they shouldn't turn their money-making machines into political machines that overpower other voices in American democracy.
