Al Franken on public financing of elections

[Lobster Martini]

These are Al Franken’s comments, via HuffPost, on public financing of elections. Due to the four paragraph rule, this is the movie trailer version with the dancing animated bag of popcorn and the film reels with eyes that say “Shhhhh. Turn off your cell phone.” This is a teaser, read the whole thing on HuffPost. The link is below. Take it, Al:

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate here in Minnesota, I've become painfully aware of the role money plays in politics.

For instance, according to my staff, I'm not supposed to write anything without mentioning that our grassroots campaign needs the support of great progressives like YOU and asking you to click here and chip in a few bucks so I can take on the Republican attack machine.

See? That kind of thing totally distracts the reader from my point, which is this: If you ever wonder whether we really need public financing of elections in this country, try running for office. You might think I spend most of my time kissing babies or shaking hands or having serious policy debates in which my sparkling wit and superior knowledge of the issues combine to sweep audiences off their feet.

<snip>

But the sad truth is, if you can't raise the money, you can't make your case.

<Big snip. Couldn’t avoid it.>

It cheats elected officials, too. With public financing, members of Congress could spend their time meeting with constituents, discussing policy problems with experts, and, you know, READING the legislation they're voting on. And we wouldn't have any more earmarks snuck in in the middle of the night, $231 million "Bridges to Nowhere," or stupid giveaways to big corporate interests. Also, I wouldn't have to keep asking you for money all the time. (Which reminds me: click here!)

That's why, when I'm in the Senate, I'll push for public financing of elections. But in the meantime, I have to go call a guy in Wayzata who's got some kind of hedge fund or something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/if-you-ever-wonder-whethe_b_50344.html

[Wetzelbill]

1. this is a great read

I read it earlier today on Huff Post. Great post. K&R

[Selatius]

2. I like his prose. It's almost conversational.

That could work well with voters who generally vote based on emotional reactions rather than rational ones.

[silverback]

3. public $$$, for who?

The problem I have with the idea is how do you determine who's eligable for the public funds?

Just the candidates the two big parties choose?

Anybody who wants to run?

[Selatius]

4. There's usually a test in examples I've seen in Arizona and Maine, both have public financing

The only caveat is that the public financing mechanism is strictly optional, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to donate money, however much the limit is, is a 1st Amendment protected right.

In Arizona and Maine, you usually have to collect X number of 5 dollar donations from registered voters in your particular district equal to X percentage of voters in that district in order to demonstrate viability. Usually, we're talking about a 5 percent rule or something. If you can't meet that threshold, you get no funding.

Once you get funding, you get a lump sum payment, but you must abide by the rules so you don't get it yanked. Such rules are you voluntarily agree not to accept any donations from individuals or groups, agree to abide by spending guidelines, and agree not to use your own money in the campaign like some wealthy candidates have done. With Arizona and Maine, if your opponent outspends you, you get matching funds within reason. (If the guy spends 100,000,000 to beat you in a district in Arizona, the state government won't give you 100,000,000 to defend yourself without breaking the bank)

There's a video at the top that explains that and other rules regarding such a system:

http://caclean.org/materials/

[Solon]

5. Usually its a threshold, like 5 or 10 percent polling and/or petitions. n/t

[youngdem]

6. Al is a great man, and a wonderful wit. I hope the people of Minnesota give him a chance

He would be wonderful.

And he's right about public financing. It is part of the required solution to clean up American politics. With public financing, it would become very easy to spot corruption, because ANY gift of value would obviously be a bribe.

Plus, you have at least a chance that someone could get elected without being beholden to 100 different puppet masters before even arriving.