Campaign Financing Reform: Part 1—Kill Corruption

Posted on | March 7, 2010 | 4 Comments

By Xelan Bonn (March 6, 2010) www.xelanbonn.com

In the US, the major expense for all candidates is their need to run the majority of their ads on the air (radio and TV) in order to get their message out to voters. (1)

In 2008, the average cost to win a House seat ran $1.36 million and Senate chair $7.5 million. (4) More desperate to win candidates spent between $29.9 to $63.2 million—a very shocking contrast.

According the Federal Election Commission, $1.68 billion was spent by all presidential candidates and the two major parties through September 30, 2009. (6) This does not include monies spent directly by special interests, such as unions, corporations, etc. For example, Obama’s campaign was dramatically aided by special interests, such as Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that went on a door knocking campaign to finally invest about $27 million from both its members and the voters they swayed. (5)

What’s not being counted here is perhaps the most significant aspect of all elections—the little known candidate underdogs. Each year, many hopefuls rise but for a moment then disappear into obscurity simply due to having no financing system or start-up backing. They are not “well run” by strong corporate interests. What this means is that those who may otherwise be good potential leaders with integrity willing to work on behalf of the public’s interest (not corporate interests) are not getting a chance. They are routinely being overstepped because money, not character and integrity, are often at odds.

Certainly there can be no doubt that if it takes a great deal of money to secure a seat, then those who provide the most money will be entitled to the most favors once the candidate gets into power. Look at the SEIU example—a $27 million investment turned into what some claim is over a $1/2 billion in contracts and other concessions—in fact the president of the group, the alleged radical communist Andy Stern, was chiefly responsible for the drafting the recent financial bail-out legislation exceeding over $1 trillion—no conflict of interest or corruption there, right Mr. President?

In order to clean up the Capitol Hill whoring of America and taxpayers, what will be needed are a few things: 1) voters need to remove the current corruptors—all incumbents for the next 6 years—to clean out all contaminants, 2) create a public campaign financing system (preferably tax/cost neutral) so that more candidates with integrity and willingness to serve the public interests instead of corporate and special interests can be encouraged to come forward (and then given the tools they need once they do), and 3) an overhaul of current campaign financing laws, especially regarding corporate and foreign entity participation and influence.

To date, many public campaign financing solutions have been forwarded but none that are cost or tax neutral—except one (which we’ll get to in a moment). For example, groups like Washington Public Campaigns have forged new public financing models that are sound in principal but lacking in execution—they simply place the election and campaign cost burden on taxpayers almost completely. (3) Most other variations and approaches do the same as well.

However, such cost and tax impacts to taxpayers can all but be eliminated and one small, highly elite, highly wealthy corporate handful would feel the pinch—but not enough to jump ship if such a remedy were invoked.

In Part II, I’ll present a basic proposal that bill makers can use to clean up our elections and campaigns to help give us better government and leaders.

Part I Into | Part II Proposal | Part III Commentary | Part IV Details

References
(1) University of Wisconsin, Advertising Project
http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/

(2) USA Today: Candidates Spend $195 Million On Campaign Ads (June 2, 2008)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-06-02-2187728261_x.htm

(3) Washington Public Campaigns
http://www.washclean.org/

(4) The Campaign Finance Institute: The Cost Of Winning An Election (1986-2008)
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t1.pdf
(5) CNS News: SEIU PAC Spent $27 Million Supporting Obama’s Election, FEC Filing Says (Dec 19, 2008)
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40959

(6) Federal Election Commission: Public Campaign Finance
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Comments