|
|
Other topics addressed in this forum:
The history of campaign fianance reform.
How campaign finance reform is handled in other countries.
The power of political action committees (PACs) and if, and how, that power should be regulated.
The courts' role in campaign finance reform
Speaker Gingrich's comment that there is too little money in the systemA question from Scott Ross of Portland, Oregon I've heard that Senator Bradley is making campaign finance reform a priority in his post-Senate career. What is he going to do? I think he wants to put initiatives on the ballots in as many states as possible. Will that work? Will your organization be involved in such a scheme?
Ellen Miller responds:
In a week in which the Senate failed to muster the votes to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the floor for debate and the Supreme Court established a new way for political parties to dump unlimited millions into political campaigns one might surmise that progress on campaign finance reform in Washington died.
But the real action for campaign finance reform, as Senator Bradley has noted has moved to the states.
Coalitions comprising such diverse citizen groups as Ross Perot's United We Stand chapters, state AFL-CIO organizations, Leagues of Women Voters and grassroots environmental activists have seized the campaign finance reform initiative in at least 27 states. Hundreds of thousands of citizens are debating the fundamental issue underlying today's campaign finance morass: Should the campaigns of our public servants be privately financed in the first place? The enthusiastic public support for bold campaign finance reforms would surprise most Washington insiders.
In Maine, a coalition called Maine Voters for Clean Elections gathered more than 65,000 signatures last Election Day to place a far-reaching reform proposition on this November's ballot. If voters approve it -- and there is every indication they will -- the proposed Maine Clean Elections Act will do more to take private money out of public elections than any federal or state reform law in the nation's history. Candidates for governor and the Legislature who could demonstrate public support by collecting a large number of $5 contributions from their districts would qualify for full public campaign financing. To receive public funds, however, they would have to accept three conditions that voters consistently tell pollsters they want: rejection of all special interest money, strict spending limits, and shorter campaign seasons.
In Missouri, a citizen-proposed ballot initiative in November of 1994 established modest contribution limits for statewide and legislative races and created a Commission on Fair Elections appointed by the governor. After the initiative passed, a broad range of citizen groups formed the Missouri Alliance for Campaign Reform, which crafted a series of proposals to put before the new Commission. The Commission subsequently voted 6-1 to recommend that the state adopt a system of full public campaign financing. A bill to that effect has already been introduced in the Missouri Legislature.
In North Carolina, the North Carolina Alliance for Democracy -- an association of 36 organizations -- has been waging an aggressive public education campaign for the past two years, focusing on who finances the campaigns of state politicians, what contributors get in return, how much it costs taxpayers, and what reforms would make state elections fairer and more democratic. The Alliance has presented a series of reform proposals -- including full public campaign financing -- to the Legislature's Election Law Review Commission.
These and similar state-level reform efforts underway in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Michigan, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Vermont, and Washington State share a common theme: For government to function democratically, the campaigns of our elected representatives must be financed democratically . This, of course, is just another way of rephrasing the old adage, "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Conventional wisdom says taxpayers won't pay for publicly financed elections. But it all depends on how the issue is framed. Polls consistently show that a majority favors making elections fairer by reducing campaign costs and removing special interest money from politics. To achieve those objectives, polls show, most voters would support public financing.
If this nascent citizens' movement for democratically financed elections keeps gaining momentum in the states, it is only a matter of time before the energy and determination it generates is felt in the nation's capital.
Meanwhile, congressional reformers truly serious about cleaning up federal elections would do well to take their lead from the coalitions beyond the Beltway. The message of these citizen reformers is clear: Stop tinkering and go to the heart of the problem. If you haven't established the principles, you're bound to lose on the details. Set your sights high and don't underestimate the public's understanding of what's at stake and what it will take to put things right.
Click here for a forum menu.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
