Malcolm Smith's opportunity
There's an opportunity buried - and I admit it's rather deeply buried at present - in the recent back-and-forth over Malcolm Smith's clearly satirical remarks to lobbyists. That opportunity is a discussion of campaign finance reform. Ironically, that's not a discussion that Dean Skelos and his caucus want to have.
Start out from the premise that our system of campaign finance is a joke. It is. When corporations (and limitless subsidiaries) can contribute to candidates, that should raise red flags in and of itself. When your relatives can give you hundreds of thousands of dollars - witness Mark Green's 2006 campaign - that's a sign that something isn't quite working. When the top donations limit is near the six-figure mark - you can give $94,500 a year to political parties, and an aggregate of $150,000 - you can deduce many things from it, the most glaringly obvious being that such a system gives those who can write checks of that magnitude perhaps larger degrees of influence than they should possess in a healthy democracy.
There are differing approaches to the subject. After his election, for example, former governor Spitzer voluntarily capped donations to his campaign at $10,000. In January, the Brennan Center released a report on the state of discussion. Our own Dan Jacoby, to his great credit, has been banging the drum on Clean Money Clean Elections since, apparently, the dawn of time.
Now, as salient issues go, campaign finance reform isn't top of mind for voters crushed by property taxes, worried about foreclosures, about healthcare costs, their jobs, how to send their kids to college, and any number of other areas where the middle class is confronted with insecurity. But if republicans really want to have a discussion about Smith's attempt at humor, the real issue is that they do not want the present system of paying for elections to change, while the Democrats do.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Campaign Finance Reform | New York State Senate | Malcolm Smith
unclear which side Smith is on
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 22 August 2008 - 11:49am.
Quite right -- for now
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 22 August 2008 - 2:46pm.
The question is whether Democrats, flush with newly acquired special interest money, will stay true to their reform values.
$
Submitted by Niccolo Machiavelli (not verified) on 22 August 2008 - 5:04pm.
Trying to take money out of politics is like trying to take cum out of sex.
Other countries do it.
Submitted by sidnora on 23 August 2008 - 10:54am.
Really the only way to fix this problem once and for all is to have publicly-financed campaigning only. Many European countries do this. Each qualified candidate gets the same fixed amount of money from the government, and that's that. But I'm not naive enough to think that we're ever going to get there in the US. The most we can hope for, I'm afraid, is McCain-Feingold type gradualism, which still leaves the camel's nose inside the tent.
The minute you allow donations in any form there will be people who can afford to pay their lawyers to find the loopholes. And as Bouldin points out, it's not the most attention-grabbing issue, especially in hard economic times or an unsettled international climate. Indeed, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction, and we progressives are sorta rationalizing it and going with the flow, because the flow happens to be in our direction for once.
We'll get there
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 23 August 2008 - 11:34am.
We'll achieve "full public funding" of campaigns, and we'll get there in our lifetime. We'll do it the same way almost every reform this country has ever seen has happened, starting small.
The "Clean Money, Clean Elections" (CMCE) system started in Maine. It has spread to Arizona and Connecticut, as well as Portland, OR, and Albuquerque, NM. Other states have some form of CMCE for some races.
For ten years there has been an effort to pass CMCE in Albany, to no effect. Mostly this is because Joe Bruno aborted any campaign finance reform effort, but partly it's because Sheldon Silver doesn't care for CMCE either. That's why I adapted the bill for New York City, and have gotten it introduced into the City Council (it's officially known as Intro 803). Current sponsors are Tony Avella, Joe Addabbo and David Yassky.
If CMCE were passed in NYC it would send shock waves all the way up to Albany and down to Washington, DC. NYC has the most aggressive and creative partial public funding, or "matching funds" system around. Despite fervent support from many insiders, including Speaker Christine Quinn, the system doesn't work -- it fails to level the playing field between those with access to lots of money and those without it, it fails to contain increases in campaign spending, and it fails to lower the influence of large donations and large fundraising. Yes, I have numbers to back up these claims.
Because so many insiders are defending the current failed system, the only way we'll get the change we need is through a massive grass roots effort. That means it's up to you -- call and e-mail your friends, have them contact their City Council reps and urge those reps to support Intro 803, the "Clean Elections Act."
Okay, I'll get off my soap box -- for now.
I agree.
Totally agree with you here Frenchman.