I recently caught an interview with Terry McAulliffe who shared a frank and candid view of politics and presidential campaigns, as the head of the DNC till 2005 who worked on campaigns from Carter to Clinton.
He related among other things, what a "knife fight" the game is and how, for better or worse you have to match the intensity of the GOP whose go-to tactic dating back to "Tricky Dick" has perennially been to slime opponents and stage manipulative stunts.
He faulted the Kerry campaign for not going on the offensive after being swift-boatted, using good evidence to paint Bush as a Vietnam avoider while Kerry had killed enemy troops and been shot at. McAuliffe insisted a candidate can't get to the finish line without showing high-test passion, and just as important, the ability to raise money - lots and lots of money. He explained that upon announcing candidacy, the period of initial money raising is essentially the "first primary".
This led me to an idea with respect to campaign finance reform.
We've been hearing for quite some time that corporations and lobbies who heavily fund candidates show astonishing returns on their "investments".
One need only look at Halliburton, the defense contractor whose contracts multiplied a staggering 600 fold under Cheney, er, I mean Bush, from their Clinton era contracts. The no-bid awards and forgiveness for gouging and double-billing only added insult to injury.
As the incoming CEO of Halliburton in 1995, one of Cheney's first acts was to double campaign contributions and many suspect his forceful hand in pushing us into war in Iraq was designed to benefit his old firm.
Advocates of public financing of campaigning estimate in cost analyses that taxpayers would save between 10-100 dollars for every dollar spent on public funding. This is because it would directly reduce the influence of deep pocketed corporations, PACs, SIGs, foreign interests and religious factions whose needs become government business right after election.
We know public funding would restore a simpler, less corruptable government and significantly free up congress members from fundraising, a chore that now consumes up to half their days.
At least one new watchdog group has been launched to closely track how this new Congress' donations convert to private benefits. Monday's LA Times ran an article entitled "Lobbyists find new Congress is open for business", indicating that although things may have incrementally shifted, Congressional offices are still speaking to lobbies, some continuing to consider the tempting offers of campaign contributions.
Mr. McAuliffe's comments underscore how ingrained a part of our political system this is, particularly in presidential politics, an unfortunate reality. A fiercely loyal defender of the Clinton campaigns, he almost reaches the point of implying ethics lapses in Clinton/Gore fundraising were borne out out of the desperate competitiveness needed in any serious presidential bid where every effort must be made to reach people far and wide to counter negative attacks.
While there are some plans for public financing being bounced about, I wondered about that particular statement of McAuliffe's, the initial burst of fundraising ostensibly being the "first primary".
In the current system, any potential candidate with the intent of ending corporate influenced corruption would undoubtedly be shunned by big money, leaving them decisively behind. This essentially gives Corporate America a greater voice then the actual population, leaving us to choose the lesser of two evils that ultimately get nominated.
What if we were to have a public financing system where every US citizen was given a "virtual wallet" representing an amount of money that government would apply to the campaigns of presidential candidates of their choice in a particular election cycle.
For example, each citizen could be staked with a certain amount of "V-dollars" beginning after the mid-term elections. Any portion of this virtual wallet could be committed to any presidential candidate once they announced their exploratory committee, or funds could be directed to multiple candidates as the elections progress. Naturally it would be wiser to hold back a certain amount until after the conventions, or there could be a second amount allocated after the nominations. But people would conceivably free to "contribute" as they wish.
Where would the money come from? The elimination of earmarks, pork barrel projects and "corporate welfare" subsidies. According to Citizens Against Government Waste's annual "Congressional Pig Book" there were 9,963 projects in the 11 appropriations bills for fiscal 2006, costing taxpayers a record $29 billion, up about 30% since 2003. These would be easily abolished by requiring individual review and a separate vote for each and every pet project.
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, "honest" music and art and obscure vinyl records.
I for one would be open to the idea of tacking on an extra $5 to $10 to my income tax return, ear marked to be used by those running for National office! Also the media should be asked to do their part by offering a certain amount of free air time for campaign ads. I'm sure it wouldn't break their budget to do so. We should all do our part to help our elected officials get out from under the thumbs of Lobbyists.
by
Jean Cotton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 9:54:37 AM
I'm serious, How does such a populist idea as publically financed campaigns get past the elected power brokers who like the way their cozy system works for them?
In 3 of the 4 states that have voted for, or implemented, publically financed campaigns it was done through citizens ballot initiatives... If we want something done right we have to do it ourselves... The people power that Nader and Dean made their activating slogans has to mean more than marching around in all kinds of weather protesting... The power of the people has to be established as constitutional law before we can hope to implement such positive reforms as you suggest....The Populists and Progressives at the turn of the century understood this and that is why the first thing they did before achieving such reforms as women's suffrage and the direct election of senators was to copy the Swiss system of ballot initiatives, direct democracy....Direct Democracy is true democracy, of, by and for the people...Such a system doesn't mean everything is done by the people, we still need our representatives, but their job becomes more along the lines of administering policy rather than establishing policy.
At such time as the people have the power to establish law "of, by, and for" themselves, we will be able to legislate around the obstacle of legislators who time and again refuse to act in the interest of the people, if doing so lessens their hold on power. Witness the state of Massachusetts which is one of the 3 aforementioned. The citizens of Mass. have twice voted for publically financed campaigns by a majority of 66% and both times the legislature has refused to fund it. It is understood that the states are the proving ground for this kind of novel legislation, so far it has not cleared many hurdles. That's alright, women's suffrage took 70 years to pass....do we have that long to fix our system and save the world!?
Let me introduce you to the '08 presidential candidacy of Senator Mike Gravel....The centerpiece of his run is a Constitutional amendment (representing 15 years of his work) guaranteeing every citizen the right to take their own initiative and, using a codified set of procedures, push forward a ballot initiative of their own design (such as yours) in any and every jurisdiction, from federal to local, throughout the land. Although presumably in a democracy the ultimate authority rests in the hands of the people, only 24 states in the Union empower their citizens with the ballot initiative. When the interests of 'we the people' are held at arms length by intransigent, self interested legislators, we need a way around them. I urge you to think seriously about supporting Senator Gravel's dark horse candidacy. Empowering the people, all of the people, is the only way we will see the ideal become the real... That is why Granny D, whose issue is your issue, is supporting Senator Mike Gravel for president.
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 11:29:16 PM
Good carts, but you all have them before the horse
"In 3 of the 4 states that have voted for, or implemented, publically financed campaigns IT WAS DONE THROUGH CITIZENS BALLOT INITIATIVES..." and "AT SUCH TIME AS THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER to establish law "of, by, and for" themselves" (My emphasis).
Here is the rub to your ideas. What you are talking about is a massive movement that has the CRITICAL MASS to overwhelm the status quo. (While my state Maine has passed campaign finance reform, we have few people (1.3M) and they are a cantankerous lot, therefore open to rebellion. Unlike you NYers, we also have a state health insurance.)
The Suffragettes eventually achieved a massive movement including women who would not necessarily call themselves Suffragettes, but who believed that change was necessary. They were writing letters to the editors etc. for years on end, and many who began the movement did not live to see the results. Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 for illegally voting in a presidential election, but the 19th Amendment was not ratified until Sep of 1920.
I commend you for wanting to make the changes that you write about, but ask you if you have the patience to stick it out for the long haul. One thing that you can do now is support Gov. Dean's push to get help to the active Dems in ALL states. By having an active and viable two party system functioning in Red states, there is more of a chance to grow the party, not for the party itself, but to increase the percentage of American voters who pay attention. You can't rework the political system if a majority of people don't vote. After living in Europe for a decade where teenagers on the street are more politically aware than the average American, I have for 3 decades bemoaned the lack of interest in my fellow citizens about the affect of American politics and diplomacy.
If there is one thing to thank Bush for it is that he has made such a tone deaf approach to the rest of the world that we now have few foreigners who think America is great, yet the American people are still like Bush, thinking that they are God's gift to the world of democracy. Maybe if W gets enough people pissed at us, people will finally get their heads out of the mall and get active.
As for candidates:
While someone like Gravel would be interesting, he has too much "libertarian" baggage and if you think Hillary would be swiftboated, Gravel has far too much in his past.....
Dennis is surely the rare person, and while I was a delegate for him in the last election, I have little illusions about his viability.
Gore probably can't win, altho with Obama as a VP, he might have a chance. You get the geek Pres. who understands technology, and the sensitive VP who understands people. Gore would set Obama straight on the coal issue, and Obama would be focused on finding a way to bring the Republicans along.
As for Hillary, and her behind the scenes meetings with Murdoch's ilk, one cynical Clinton is enough, but I would vote for her with a clothespin on my nose, and I would cancel out one of the people who love to hate her.
So far, I don't see any Perfect Democrat, but Gov. Dean showed us that if you can get younger people inspired, you have more people voting, even if the candidate that they wanted doesn't win the primary. And that is what is MOST important, if you want to take back this country from the corporations and the rich.
by
Richard Fochtmann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 7:49:33 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
