Election Reform

CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN REFORM - THE TIME IS NOW!

The 2000 presidential election exposed our Electoral System as one of the greatest impediments to functional democracy in America. The dysfunctions are so widespread and so complicated that most people turn away from the issue, feeling overwhelmed. Yet, without substantial electoral reform, we will never have a system that reflects the will of the people. Some of the issues that we face:

• The vast sums of private money that virtually own American elections through campaign donations and media manipulation.
• The monopoly of the two parties and their rules that eliminate others.
• The disenfranchisement of millions of Americans through entrenched traditions of racism and exclusion.
• Draconian rules that limit ballot access to new candidates and new parties.
• Geographic discrepancies in all parts of the system from one State to another and from one County to another in the same state.
• The winner-take-all practice that denies representation to 49% of the electorate.
• Confusing and uneven rules about when and where to register; when and where to vote.

In 2001, a National Commission on Election Reform was established to address some of the irregularities of the election. Chaired by ex-presidents Ford and Carter, the commission made the following recommendations:

• All states should adopt a statewide voter registration system Provisional voting should be allowed by anyone who claims to be a registered voter; the vote to be counted only after voter determined to be qualified
• Election day should be a national holiday
• Absentee balloting for uniformed and overseas voters should be simplified
• Voting rights should be restored to felons after completion of sentence, probation & parole
• Federal and state authorities must take steps, through funding and education, to ensure voter rights
• Have each state set benchmark for voting system performance
• Federal standards should be in place for voting system equipment
• Uniform, statewide standards for determining what constitutes a vote, should be on all equipment
• No projections of presidential election results by news media as long as polls remain open in 48 contiguous states
• $300-$400 million needed for state and federal funding of election administration
• Legislation needed - including federal assistance and setting policy objectives to states - while leaving strategy choices to states

These may solve some of the problems, but no legislation can begin to address every issue. In general, legislators are not interested in changing the system because it worked for them. It will require massive citizen action on every front to make substantial changes to the system. Four U.S. States have passed Clean Money Campaign Reform laws that have begun to transform their elections: Arizona, Vermont, Maine & Massachusetts

Compiled & distributed by the Jefferson County Green Party in the interest of creating a Washington State Clean Money Campaign Reform Movement.

* * * * * * * * * *

VOTERS MAKE CLEAN MONEY THE LAW IN MASSACHUSETTS AND ARIZONA
(Summary) Analysis by Public Campaign

WASHINGTON, DC -- Resounding victories for comprehensive campaign finance reform initiatives in Arizona and Massachusetts have left voters reclaiming their democracy, and wealthy special interests scrambling. With all the votes counted, voters in Massachusetts approved Question 2 -- "The Clean Elections Law" -- by a 2-1 margin with 66 percent of the vote in favor, while Proposition 200 -- "The Citizens Clean Elections Act" passed with 51 percent approval in Arizona.

Arizona and Massachusetts are now poised to join Maine and Vermont in offering candidates for state-level office a chance to break the hold special interests have on public officials through their campaign contributions. Both referenda provide an alternative system of campaign financing that gives all qualifying candidates who agree to take little or no private money and who agree to limit their campaign spending, a fixed amount of money from a publicly-financed pool.

The impressive victories in Arizona and Massachusetts are consistent with a national trend in this year's elections; when offered the opportunity to vote for sweeping change in the way we finance campaigns, voters are not afraid to act. "The victories in Arizona and Massachusetts for Clean Money Campaign Reform prove that voters have the political will to enact far-reaching campaign finance reform, whether they are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, business or labor," said Ellen Miller, executive director of Public Campaign.

The victories also provide strong momentum to local, grassroots efforts in other states working to bring Clean Money reforms to their own electoral systems, as popular support for comprehensive reform is as robust in other states across the country as it is in Arizona and Massachusetts.

Missouri is slated to put Clean Money to the ballot test in 2000, while New Mexico will introduce Clean Money Campaign Reform legislation in January. In addition, at least 40 other states are working toward Clean Money reform, including Washington, Oregon and Wisconsin, as they continue to build and broaden their state coalitions and educate voters about the problems of money in politics.

Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization working on behalf of comprehensive campaign finance reform.

CLEAN MONEY-CLEAN ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN - ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY
681 MAIN STREET, SUITE 2-16
WALTHAM, MA 02451
Email: jamesace@earthlink.net
URL: www.thealliancefordemocracy.org

* * * * * * * * * *

Background - Clean Money Campaign Reform

The trajectory of campaign-finance developments in the late 1990s should make the most cynical lawmaker blush and the average citizen furious. Special interest money smothered Washington in the 1996 elections, shattering all the records for fundraising in the contest for the presidency. Since that election, the public has been bombarded with revelations about the flagrant abuse of loopholes, systematic influence peddling, and political favors granted to special interests in Washington and state capitals across the country. Nevertheless, even as voters clambered for change (and won some victories at the state level), the U.S. Congress failed repeatedly to act on even modest reform proposals.

Then came the 1998 elections, which broke the billion-dollar mark even as fewer candidates ventured forth to run for office. The political parties championed more millionaire candidates who could finance their own campaigns. More new tactics emerged for getting around campaign finance laws, such as issue advertising, on which an estimated $275 million was spent during the 1998 cycle. By mid-1999, it was clear that fundraising for the 2000 races was over the top. One presidential frontrunner had already amassed so much private cash that he decided to ignore the partial public funding system so that he wouldn't have to bother with spending limits. House incumbents took in 47 percent more than had in a comparable period before the 1998 elections; even Senators who weren't up for re-election were fundraising heavily. Huge, unregulated soft money contributions from corporations, unions and individuals continued on, unfettered. Analysts projected that by November 2000 soft money totals would top $500 million. Overall campaign spending could hit $3 billion.

Media coverage of individual scandals focuses public attention on possible illegalities, but the bigger scandal is that so much of the money changing hands is completely legal. What President Lyndon Johnson observed some 30 years ago is still true today: the system is more loophole than law. It is clear that the system of laws governing campaign financing has been rendered meaningless and requires fundamental changes that will provide new options for candidates.

While Congress and most state legislatures appear far from any consensus on the problem, much less a solution, the voters are far ahead of the politicians. In November 1996, in Maine, they approved a Clean Money Campaign Reform initiative, by a 56 to 44 percent margin, that does something that no state or federal legislation had ever done. It offers full public financing to candidates for state office who reject special-interest contributions and agree to campaign spending limits. Those who discounted the Maine law as a one-state wonder were proved dramatically wrong in the next two years. In June 1997, the Vermont legislature voted overwhelmingly to create such a system for their state. In November 1998, voters in both Arizona and Massachusetts adopted new Clean Money systems via ballot initiatives.

The Problem

Voters say:

• Campaigns are too expensive;
• Special interests have too much influence;
• Good candidates without money or connections to special interests don't have a fair chance of competing for office;
• Politicians spend too much time raising campaign money instead of devoting their full energies to the duties of public office.

But voters aren't the only ones who are disgusted with the current system -- even lawmakers are getting fed up with it. In fact, some elected officials are so tired of the money chase that they are leaving politics. When Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) announced he would not run again in 2000 he said, "I do not want to sit there all these hours of each day asking for money when in fact there is good solid work to be done. It would distract me from the job I was sent to Washington to do." As experienced politicians and gifted potential candidates chose not to run rather than face the arduous task of raising this much money, we will experience a loss of the best leadership. That is, unless we can muster the national will to pass Clean Money reforms.

Clean Money Campaign Reform addresses the most serious problems that concern voters and lawmakers:

Problem	CMCR Solution
Campaigns are too expensive	Provides constitutionally acceptable spending limit
Too much special-interest influence	Participating candidates do not take special interest money
Candidates and lawmakers spend too much time chasing money	Eliminates need for fundraising
Good people don't have a fair chance to compete	Provides a financially level playing field
Too many loopholes	Comprehensive package tightens loopholes

Clean Money Campaign Reform: The Most Comprehensive Solution

The success of the Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona ballot initiatives has given greater energy and focus to campaign finance reform efforts in more than a dozen states, including Missouri, Oregon, Michigan, and Idaho. In much the same way, the passage of the "Vermont Campaign Option" by the Vermont legislature in June 1997 has since inspired state legislators around the country to come out in support for such reforms in such places as Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. It has also galvanized federal lawmakers to introduce CMCR bills in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

CMCR is strictly voluntary, in keeping with Supreme Court rulings. While no two CMCR bills are exactly the same, this approach sets up an alternate system that provides strong incentives for candidates to participate – they receive a set amount of Clean Money from a publicly financed fund if they agree to reject private money and limit their spending. Clean Money Campaign Reform represents the most comprehensive and far-reaching approach to election finance.

Clean Money Campaign Reform is a package of measures that:

• gives candidates the option to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the CMCR system,
• reduces campaign spending,
• protects candidates' integrity and the integrity of the lawmaking process,
• bans the use of "soft money" to influence elections,
• makes available free or discounted television time for federal candidates and requires candidate debates.
• It addresses the problem of electioneering efforts that masquerade as non-electoral "issue campaigns,"
• provides additional funding to Clean Money candidates targeted by independent expenditures,
• deepens disclosure and toughens enforcement.