MyDD :: What does classroom democracy have to do with who's committed to Clean Elections?

What does classroom democracy have to do with who's committed to Clean Elections?

by David Donnelly, Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:53:40 PM EST

This morning my wife and I spent an hour in my son Benjamin's class. He's in third grade. His teacher had thought it would be great for my wife and I to come in and talk about Election Day and the importance of voting. We were happy to do it.

We talked about all the signs they see on the side of the road, the commercials running on television, and what elections mean. We also had them throw out examples of things that they didn't think were political, and we told them how they were. (They offered things like, "This textbook isn't political!" and "Getting sick isn't political.") Of course, our son Benjamin, who has watched me working on passing Clean Elections in states, actually knows who Tom DeLay is (go figure), etc., tried to be the star of the show. We went from discussing all of the things that are impacted by the laws passed by people we elect, to going through the voter file for our small town to see if their parents were registered to vote. Their homework: Make sure their parents vote, and go with them, if possible.

I couldn't help but think, though, about what a disconnect there is between the classroom democracy taught to our kids and the real world democracy practiced by consultants, fundraisers, lobbyists, and power-seekers. Leaving, I also couldn't help but wonder if any of those kids in Benjamin's class would ever be turned on to politics enough to run for office someday. If so, they'd better make their next birthday party a fundraiser.

I'm only half joking. Who can run major office today? This election wil cost an estimated $2.6 billion. It costs between $1 and 2 million for a challenger to stand a chance. Most have to spend more. It's out of control, and now, out of reach for far too many qualified Americans who see public service as a calling rather an avenue to riches by cashing-in at the end of their time in office. If you spend any time in our public schools, you are immediately confronted with the need for qualified political leaders willing to invest in what's right (education) versus what's wrong (the war in Iraq). But our political system doesn't always pick the best leaders. It generally picks the best fundraisers though. How much overlap is there?

Yesterday, I wrote about Clean Elections-style public financing. Clean Elections laws in seven states and two cities allow good people to run for office without relying on wealthy donors. Candidates agree to a spending limit, agree to take little or no private money, and raise a large number of small qualifying contributions. After that, they receive a set amount of public money to run their campaigns, and receive matching "fair fight" funds to respond to attacks from independent expenditures or free-spending opponents.

Today, my organization, Public Campaign Action Fund, is publicizing a list of congressional candidates who will likely win their elections and enter the next Congress as supporters of this policy (as determined by their response to the Voters First Pledge, which is also supported by Common Cause, Public Citizen, and other prominent national organizations).

Included on this list are signatories who are in competitive races. We'll be updating the list periodically, and tracking these races closely next Tuesday.

There are other candidates who have made public financing a part of their message -- notably Gary Trauner in WY-AL (disclosure: our 527 is running this "Slap" ad there, which has changed the race) -- and are running in races which will determine whether this next Congress goes the distance on Clean Elections.

Look at this list. These are the candidates who are not willing to pull up the ladder of electoral opportunity after they climbed to the top. They know, in their gut, that the kids I taught this morning and the rest of us, for that matter, are short-changed by a pay-to-play system that is inherently inequal, sells us short, limits our leadership, and corrupts our Congress.

These are some the leaders we'll look to in January.

Tags: public financing, Clean Elections, voters first pledge, congress, HR 3099, Clean Money, Clean Elections Act (all tags)

Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What does classroom democracy have to do with (none / 0)

Mark Kleiman had a clean election plan. Here's the URL. I'd be curious what you think of it.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2006 /10/a_modest_proposal_for_campaign_finan ce_reform.php

P.S. Doesn't it make you feel full of hope to work with children? That was very clever they way you brought them into it with the challenge to find something non-political.

by prince myshkin on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:10:12 PM EST

Re: What does classroom democracy have to do with (none / 0)

Mark Kleiman's post is based on an idea called Patriot Dollars. Basically, the theory goes, we need to level the playing field among donors, not just candidates. Everyone should have some money to give to the politician of your choice, regardless of whether you can afford to out of your own budget. It's not a bad idea, but there are some unanswered questions and possible flaws. Here are a few concerns.

1. If vouchers are distributed around to all voters, we might set up a race among candidates to collect all that money. Who is best suited to win that race? Who ever does has a cash advantage. Those with name recognition, already established field operations, etc. We'll never remove incumbent advantages, but I've never been satisified with answers to how this system doesn't privilege incumbents more than challengers.

2. Candidates have little way to quickly respond to attacks by independent expenditures under a system like this, as opposed to how Clean Elections work -- candidates receive "fair fight" funds to respond, dollar-for-dollar, if they're targeted.

3. We know Clean Elections does work. Voters and candidates alike in the states in which its the law report that they like it. I'm not opposed to new ideas (Clean Elections was new when I ran the ballot question in Maine to pass it) but why do we search for a new one when we know this one works quite well.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to the idea. I think it's worth a look. It gets people engaged, and replaced one type interested money with a better type of interested money.

by David Donnelly on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NH (none / 0)

We have 400 state representatives in our legislature. They get paid $100 a year plus mileage. You have to be independently wealthy, have something other than a 9-5 job, or be retired to run. You can run a campaign for $1000, or less, but how representative do you think our legislature is? Not very. Lots of real estate agents, lawyers, small business owners who can take time off, but nobody like me. My husband retired last year and he is running.
And we have a grassroots campaign for the 1st Congressional District that is running on a shoestring and making a good run against Bradley, but this is a rare thing.
http://www.carolforcongress.com

www.carolforcongress.com

by bloomingpol on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:20:30 PM EST

Clean Elections? (none / 0)

Getting kids interested and involved in politics is the most important thing in gauging whether they become civic leaders.

When I was in 1st grade, we had a visit from a local state representative. Every year he visited classrooms throught the district and talked about the importance of voting and participating in a democracy, and mind you he was talking to young kids.

Today he is a state senator and a member of the leadership. Even though he's a Republican, he'll probably always have my vote because he legitimately had an impact on how I viewed democracy from an early age.

by MyDD Fan on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:47:02 PM EST

How do the numbers add up for Clean Elections? (none / 0)

Let's assume a Dem trifecta in 08, 240-195 and 55-45.

Where are the votes for a Federal Clean Elections-style bill?

I see, for example, that a CE bill (HR 3099) has been languishing in committee since last July; and has accumulated the grand total of 40 cosponsors. (Hoyer's not there, natch. But neither is Pelosi.)

Now, that bill was clearly going nowhere in the 109th; but Dem reps don't seem terribly keen on nailing their CE colors to the mast!

In the Senate, things would be even stickier.

Trouble is, the moneybags would be Harry and Louise-ing the hell out of it, for obvious reasons.

Why, if you're an incumbent who's got his comfy berth through the old big money system, should you willingly subject yourself to that sort of war when patently the old system works.

Corruptly, and at enormous cost to Americans, certainly. But - when have those considerations been uppermost in the minds of most pols?

by skeptic06 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:55:16 PM EST

Re: How do the numbers add up for Clean Elections? (none / 0)

Let's break this down into two parts: Inside and Outside.

Inside:

House: HR 3099, introduced by Reps. Tierney and Grijalva, is a good bill but will likely have an upgrading. Times have changed. We haven't had a Republican cosponsor, but we might find one in one of the GOP reps who support the pledge (Platts, Simmons, and Leach -- the latter two are in electoral trouble). We've broken into leadership with support on our pledge from Hoyer, Larson and others. We're not there yet by any stretch. But we're making progress.

Senate: The last bill introduced on this was the Kerry-Wellstone bill several years ago. Paul was an amazing force of nature, and I, for one, work on this issue, in part, to honor his legacy. In the next Senate, Durbin is likely to take a leading role in putting together a bill and lining up support. Clinton and Cantwell were also on that early bill. We're confident about our progress in this chamber.

Outside:

You (and everyone else like you): This won't happen if we leave it to inside the beltway leaders, or frankly, organizations. We have to shape this debate from the ground up. It's too critical a fight to take up and then leave to insiders. That's why I'm here -- to try to first, educate people about the opportunity, and second, to help connect the dots between the energy and good ideas of the netroots with the practical campaign that has to be waged.

Groups: We're helping to build a broad, diverse, powerful coalition of membership organizations to conduct a campaign. Last Spring, Public Campaign wrote a letter to Senators in support of this and it was co-signed by the AFL-CIO, SEIU, MoveOn, Sierra Club, NAACP, and Campaign for America;s Future. It has to obviosuly get broader than that, but already that list is more interesting than most reform coalitions, no?

You thoughts?

by David Donnelly on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A number of doubts (none / 0)

I'm certainly all in favor of any constitutional measure that stands a decent chance of curbing the obscene (and, unhappily, mostly legal) corruption that the current campaign finance system gives rise to.

What I find rather thin on the ground is evidence suggesting that there is any appetite for, let alone momentum behind, to sort of reform that you're talking about - either in Congress or out.

Pretty much, a reform like Clean Elections tends to take a fair number of failed attempts before getting enacted - if it does - climbing higher up the hill each time before it falls back down again.

Typically, I'd expect (rightly or wrongly) to see such reform go as high as passing one house and being balked in the other, on the floor or in conference, before a bill eventually passed.

Admittedly, in looking at the cosponsor list of HR 3099, I'm getting rather a narrow view to judge support among House Dems for Clean Elections; but, even so, if there was any real momentum behind the idea, I'd expect to see more names, and leadership names.

The fact, though, that Hoyer should express support I would count as significant, given what is (I think) generally regarded as his limp embrace of ethics reform generally - as expressed in the Washington Monthly piece a few days ago.

It occurs to me, though, that such a stance might be rather convenient: to espouse a sweeping (though far off) reform to distract from opposition to more minor, but more immediate, reforms!

More broadly, the fact that the House leadership generally (Pelosi to the fore, natch) banged the drum so loudly against the culture of corruption but has not, corporately, swung behind a reform like Clean Elections gives me more pause.

A large part of the legislative output in a Dem-controlled 110th House would essentially be a shop-window display of goodies that would come with the election of a Dem trifecta in 08, rather for enactment in watered down form: Clean Elections would look pretty attractive in such a display.

Any reason why the leadership shouldn't want to do that? (That's a genuine question, by the way!)

As for getting grassroots activity and pressure going, I wonder what the track record of that has been in the field of campaign finance reform. (Another genuine question: I'm a very late convert to the joys of political minutiae.)

For instance, how important was such activity in helping push through what became the BCRA?

And - lastly - there's the example of MA, which enacted CE and then repealed it - and this, of course, a Dem-controlled lege with veto-proof majorities!

And, be it said, this flagrant embrace of dirty elections doesn't seem to have done the great-grandsons of James Curley too much damage in the polls.

My sense (informed by woefully deficient information) is that the balance of forces operating on campaign to enact a Federal CE law would heavily favor the partisans of the status quo: incumbents have no incentive to change, would expect to be punished by their financiers if they tried; and even the more switched-on and sympathetics demos would tend to find the subject dryly technical and goo-goo.

I'm more than eager for the evidence that proves me wrong, though!

by skeptic06 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A number of doubts (none / 0)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Unfortunately, I know the Massachusetts experience all too well. Rest assured, we know the battle is long. Nothing worth winning usually comes easily, and the games that elected officials play on this issue are many.

What's the alternative? You fight for what you believe in with open eyes, and accept compromise only as stepping stones toward the goal.

P.S. When in Boston, my son mentioned above went to the James Michael Curley public elementary school.

by David Donnelly on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love the idea (none / 0)

of helping schoolchildren see the political in their lives. We need more of that.

And we need clean elections.

David, I am coordinating the Exhibit Hall at YearlyKos Convention 2007. Please forgive the pitch, but I think you guys need to consider taking a booth or table in Chicago. If you want any information about it, you can email me at exhibits [dot] yearlykos [at] gmail [dot] com. Or if you just want to learn a bit more about the convention, you can go to yearlykosconvention dot org

Thanks, and thank you for helping to restore health to our democracy.

Cheers, Klio

by Klio on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:00:08 PM EST

Re: I love the idea (none / 0)

You got it. Having attended Las Vegas, I can absolutely commit to being there, and setting up a booth.

by David Donnelly on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I love the idea (none / 0)

sweet!

I'll look for it. I have the prospectus all ready to send :-)

ot: you should work on formalizing that talk you gave to your 3rd grader's class. I'm sure many people would love some instruction in how to to that that in their own schools. [yes, I'm looking at me]

Cheers,

by Klio on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

clean money in CA (none / 0)

California's Proposition 89 provides clean money elections and if it passes in California, it will prove to voters nationwide that it can work as well everywhere as it is working in Arizona and Maine.

Yes on Proposition 89 ~ BLOG

by Yes on Prop 89 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:06:00 PM EST

Re: clean money in CA (none / 0)

Yes -- Prop 89 is critical. These laws work. They've worked in New England. They've worked in the Southwest. They work in the South (NC). And Prop 89 will work in California.

by David Donnelly on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What does (none / 0)

Who can run [for] major office today? This election wil cost an estimated $2.6 billion.

$2.6 billion. Jesus Christ. And yet when we suggest you scrap the machines and have hand counted paper ballots, you say "oh, you don't understand, that would be too expensive."

Americans are crazy.

by Del C on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 05:00:30 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.