Friday, August 06, 2004
See our Channel 10 TV interview on Schwarzenegger Fundraising
Following up on Ned's post from yesterday about the role of big donors in ballot initiative campaigns, see this piece here by Channel 10's Marcy Brightwell on record breaking fundraising by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold is raising money at about twice the pace of his predecessor Gray Davis. He defends himself by saying that the money isn't for him, it's for ballot campaigns that he thinks are good for California. But, there are two problems with that answer:
1) It's just as wrong for big donors to dominate the ballot initiative process as it is candidate elections. In fact, California's Fair Political Practices Commission has issued regulations that will go into effect next year applying California's (very high) candidate contribution limits to ballot initiative committees controlled by a candidate. See my June 23rd blog on this topic here.
2) Arnold campaigned for office saying he was going to get big money out of politics. He's done nothing so far on that score, so seeing him instead focus on getting more big money into the process is troubling. Let's hope he remembers why he ran.
Following up on Ned's post from yesterday about the role of big donors in ballot initiative campaigns, see this piece here by Channel 10's Marcy Brightwell on record breaking fundraising by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold is raising money at about twice the pace of his predecessor Gray Davis. He defends himself by saying that the money isn't for him, it's for ballot campaigns that he thinks are good for California. But, there are two problems with that answer:
1) It's just as wrong for big donors to dominate the ballot initiative process as it is candidate elections. In fact, California's Fair Political Practices Commission has issued regulations that will go into effect next year applying California's (very high) candidate contribution limits to ballot initiative committees controlled by a candidate. See my June 23rd blog on this topic here.
2) Arnold campaigned for office saying he was going to get big money out of politics. He's done nothing so far on that score, so seeing him instead focus on getting more big money into the process is troubling. Let's hope he remembers why he ran.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
A Handful of California Billionaires Spend Millions to Fashion the Public Policy They Want
California law "limits" campaign contributions to candidates to $21,200 per election cycle, indexed for inflation. Everybody who can afford to give this much, step forward. Oh, right.
As much as this favors wealthy donors over regular folks when it comes to electing candidates who support their agendas, California's system of financing ballot initiatives is even worse. It has no contribution limits. Most rich donors love this of course, and line up with checkbooks in hand to write checks for millions of dollars to support their favorite causes, whether in the interest of the greater California public or no.
As Paul Elias of the Associated Press reports, the latest ballot initiative to receive the royal treatment is Prop 71, which aims to direct over $3 billion towards stem cell research over the next ten years. Four billionaires have given at least $1 million in support of Prop 71, including one who has given nearly $2 million. Without passing judgment on the merits of the bill, these donations corrupt the very idea of democracy that ballot initiatives are intended to reflect.
Democracy. Rule of the people. The people as a whole decide, not just a handful of the rich and powerful. By allowing wealthy donors to make unlimited contributions to ballot initiatives, we allow them to vault an issue immediately into public prominence (through tv and newspaper ads, through fliers, etc.), sidestepping the democratic decision-making process whereby an issue gets broached in our living rooms, discussed at millions of kitchen tables, and mulled over during our countless morning showers and commutes, allowing we the people to arrive at our own decision as to whether an issue merits public action, and if so what action.
When a handful of people have the economic power to thrust an issue in our faces, complete with arguments and counterarguments and solutions, it pre-empts this process. It force-feeds us the rich people's particular conception of the issues of the day and spoon-feeds us their preferred public policy solutions. It buys them legitimacy without going to the people whose consent is required before legitimacy attaches to any public action in a democracy.
California's wealthy donors may have their hearts in the right place on Prop 71 or any other ballot initiative they contribute millions of dollars towards. Be that as it may, that does not excuse or justify the corrupting effects their huge donations have on our democracy. Wealthy interests, regardless of their moral or ethical or political leanings, should play by the same rules as the rest of us.
California law "limits" campaign contributions to candidates to $21,200 per election cycle, indexed for inflation. Everybody who can afford to give this much, step forward. Oh, right.
As much as this favors wealthy donors over regular folks when it comes to electing candidates who support their agendas, California's system of financing ballot initiatives is even worse. It has no contribution limits. Most rich donors love this of course, and line up with checkbooks in hand to write checks for millions of dollars to support their favorite causes, whether in the interest of the greater California public or no.
As Paul Elias of the Associated Press reports, the latest ballot initiative to receive the royal treatment is Prop 71, which aims to direct over $3 billion towards stem cell research over the next ten years. Four billionaires have given at least $1 million in support of Prop 71, including one who has given nearly $2 million. Without passing judgment on the merits of the bill, these donations corrupt the very idea of democracy that ballot initiatives are intended to reflect.
Democracy. Rule of the people. The people as a whole decide, not just a handful of the rich and powerful. By allowing wealthy donors to make unlimited contributions to ballot initiatives, we allow them to vault an issue immediately into public prominence (through tv and newspaper ads, through fliers, etc.), sidestepping the democratic decision-making process whereby an issue gets broached in our living rooms, discussed at millions of kitchen tables, and mulled over during our countless morning showers and commutes, allowing we the people to arrive at our own decision as to whether an issue merits public action, and if so what action.
When a handful of people have the economic power to thrust an issue in our faces, complete with arguments and counterarguments and solutions, it pre-empts this process. It force-feeds us the rich people's particular conception of the issues of the day and spoon-feeds us their preferred public policy solutions. It buys them legitimacy without going to the people whose consent is required before legitimacy attaches to any public action in a democracy.
California's wealthy donors may have their hearts in the right place on Prop 71 or any other ballot initiative they contribute millions of dollars towards. Be that as it may, that does not excuse or justify the corrupting effects their huge donations have on our democracy. Wealthy interests, regardless of their moral or ethical or political leanings, should play by the same rules as the rest of us.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Incumbents in Wisconsin Dominate Fundraising Race Over Challengers
As Steven Walters reports in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Wisconsin incumbents have outraised challengers 8:1. This huge fundraising advantage is likely the principal reason that fully one-third of incumbent legislators face either no competition or only third party competition.
One legislator points to the national fundraising picture to explain why fundraising is the dominant factor in Wisconsin's elections:
As Steven Walters reports in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Wisconsin incumbents have outraised challengers 8:1. This huge fundraising advantage is likely the principal reason that fully one-third of incumbent legislators face either no competition or only third party competition.
One legislator points to the national fundraising picture to explain why fundraising is the dominant factor in Wisconsin's elections:
But Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) said exploding costs of Wisconsin campaigns reflect a national trend, despite changes at the federal level. "McCain-Feingold clearly hasn't done anything to put a damper on money in politics," Kanavas said.
Campaign finance reform was on the agenda in the Legislature this past spring, but ended up going nowhere. Kanavas expressed a worry that some of the proposed changes might affect free speech, stating that the only true reform is "raising (contribution) limits and 24-hour reporting".
So it sounds like the senator thinks it a good thing that one-third of Wisconsin's residents won't have a choice in the upcoming elections. Or maybe he thinks that allowing wealthy donors to "speak their minds" with big contributions that the rest of us can't afford is more important than representative democracy.
Regardless, let's hope that whomever gets elected to the Wisconsin Legislature this fall has ideas a little less aristocratic and a little more democratic than State Senator Kanavas.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Hahn, Hertzberg et al Forced to Kiss Ass All Over the Country
Pat McGreevey reports in The LA Times about Los Angeles mayoral candidates going to last week's Democratic Convention in order to drum up financial support for their campaigns.
Try as I might, I can't come up with any kind of democratic justification for allowing wealthy folks from one city to hijack an election in another with big contributions. I kinda thought a key part of self-determination was s-e-l-f.
Apparently $1,000 (LA's contribution limit) doesn't go as far towards buying an election as it once did.
These politicians and their apologists will try to tell you that these would-be politicians are only doing what they have to do within the limits of the law in order to win -- don't hate the player, hate the game. Right. But who makes the rules of this game again?
Pat McGreevey reports in The LA Times about Los Angeles mayoral candidates going to last week's Democratic Convention in order to drum up financial support for their campaigns.
Try as I might, I can't come up with any kind of democratic justification for allowing wealthy folks from one city to hijack an election in another with big contributions. I kinda thought a key part of self-determination was s-e-l-f.
Apparently $1,000 (LA's contribution limit) doesn't go as far towards buying an election as it once did.
These politicians and their apologists will try to tell you that these would-be politicians are only doing what they have to do within the limits of the law in order to win -- don't hate the player, hate the game. Right. But who makes the rules of this game again?
Monday, August 02, 2004
Clean Elections in Arizona
As reported by Annabelle Garay of the AP, an Arizona judge threw out a developer-driven effort to repeal Arizona's successful Clean Elections program. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret H. Downie ruled the initiative violated the Arizona Constitution by posing two separate questions in one measure.
The developer-backed group, No Taxpayer Money for Politicians, did not limit themselves to using a misleading title or disingenuous ballot language in their efforts to reimpose their influence over Arizona elections, but even resorted to hiring bald-faced liars of questionable sobriety to collect signatures, as Derek wrote here in June.
Ignoring the stupid and petty corrupt practices for the moment, what this group is trying to accomplish is nothing less than the re-privatization of elections in Arizona, with candidate slots going to the highest bidder. These guys cloak themselves in the mantle of the common man, trying to play Robin Hood to the wicked politicians' Sheriff of Nottingham by putting a few more pennies back in the taxpayers' pockets, but what they really want is the ability to pay the way into office for candidates or politicians that agree with their agenda. And whose pockets do you suppose that will line?
Judge Downie's ruling will probably be appealed, meaning that the Clean Elections program may still be at risk this November depending on the outcome of the appeal. But Thursday's decision still stands as a victory for supporters of democracy and a setback for those who would calibrate a person's voice in society to the amount of money they have in the bank.
As reported by Annabelle Garay of the AP, an Arizona judge threw out a developer-driven effort to repeal Arizona's successful Clean Elections program. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret H. Downie ruled the initiative violated the Arizona Constitution by posing two separate questions in one measure.
The developer-backed group, No Taxpayer Money for Politicians, did not limit themselves to using a misleading title or disingenuous ballot language in their efforts to reimpose their influence over Arizona elections, but even resorted to hiring bald-faced liars of questionable sobriety to collect signatures, as Derek wrote here in June.
Ignoring the stupid and petty corrupt practices for the moment, what this group is trying to accomplish is nothing less than the re-privatization of elections in Arizona, with candidate slots going to the highest bidder. These guys cloak themselves in the mantle of the common man, trying to play Robin Hood to the wicked politicians' Sheriff of Nottingham by putting a few more pennies back in the taxpayers' pockets, but what they really want is the ability to pay the way into office for candidates or politicians that agree with their agenda. And whose pockets do you suppose that will line?
Judge Downie's ruling will probably be appealed, meaning that the Clean Elections program may still be at risk this November depending on the outcome of the appeal. But Thursday's decision still stands as a victory for supporters of democracy and a setback for those who would calibrate a person's voice in society to the amount of money they have in the bank.
