I _was all excited about the proposed Clean Election (public funding) bill

[GreenPartyVoter]

being put forward on the Hill.

Let me just start by saying please do not take this as an attack on Dems by any means. I am just saying this is not the best way to pursue Clean Elections. We have them here in Maine and they are one of the main reasons a Green was able to be elected to our State legislature. They are also the reason why a lot of regular people rather than just the moneyed and well-connected have been able to run and win seats in the House here. This is _very_ important when it comes to our policy-making because it means our Reps do not have to feel beholden to campaign contributors. So if you have an interest in helping Congress truly reflect our nation's population by lessening the number of millionaires and CEOs on the Hill please contact the sponsors of this Bill and let them know you appreciate their efforts but would like to see some changes.

Thanks!

"Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin and Sen. Chris Dodd, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, said yesterday that they will push for public financing of federal elections.

The revelations follow public financing proposals that two senior House Democrats unveiled late last month.

Rep. David Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, announced Jan. 25 plans to reform dramatically the funding of House campaigns. Under their proposal, taxpayers would be asked to contribute voluntarily to a national campaign fund."

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/020906/news3.html

"The bill would effectively eliminate virtually all congressional campaigns by independent and third-party candidates.

The bill, HR 4694, would provide public financing for both Democrats and Republicans in most districts. But Ballot Access News reports that candidates not qualifying for funding would not only receive no government funds, but would also be barred from spending any privately raised money. No government money and no private money means that a non-qualifying candidate would be prohibited from spending any money at all, not one red cent. Not even a business card with the candidate’s name and office sought would be legal under the bill!

Requirements for qualifying for funding would be relatively easy for the major parties but almost impossible for independent and third-party candidates. The bill would provide public funding for nominees of parties that had averaged 25% of the vote for U.S. House in that district over the last two elections. Independent candidates who had averaged 25% would also get full public funding, but unlike party candidates, only the specific individual who previously got those votes would qualify. All others would be required to submit petitions signed by 20% of the last vote cast for full funding, and 10% for partial funding. For example, in Missouri’s 2nd congressional district, a candidate with a party that won less than 25% of the vote in the last two elections would need nearly 70,000 signatures to qualify for the public funding that her/his Democratic and Republican opponents would get automatically, and only signatures from the 2nd District would count. Nearly 35,000 signatures would be required in order to allow the candidate to spend anything at all on the campaign.

In certain districts where a single party is dominant, the bill would eliminate campaigns by the district’s second party as well. Not surprisingly, Democrats (who propose this bill) hold Republican opponents to below 25% in more districts than Republicans do the same to Democrats. If the bill were law today, a Republican campaign in Lacy Clay’s 1st District would be illegal without a massive petition drive. In Roy Blunt’s 7th District, Democrats would be less than a percentage point away from the same fate."

http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2006/02/bill-would-ban-3rd-party-campaigns-for.html

[MadHound]

1. As much as I want publicly funded elections, this is a BS bill

One that would set in concrete the two party/same corporate master system of government. If we are going to publicly fund elections, we must include third parties in the mix, otherwise we are doing a horrible disservice to democracy in this country.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Any suggestions on how to reword it? I mean if we are going to

write and/or call in to explain that it's not quite what we're looking for, we should have something ready to suggest as an alternative.

[MadHound]

3. Yes, insert a provision that if a third party meets certain criteria

Through either petition signatures, showing in last election, etc. then that party gets funded. Oh, and let's insert another provision that this can be funded by placing a tax on lobbyists.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Well the provision now is a very large percentage and high number of sigs

What would be more reasonable I guess is what I am asking? (Really, requiring an independent or smaller party candidate to qualify based on the votes garnered in previous elections where they were at a disadvantage due to funding is a bit odd.)

[MadHound]

5. I think that it would have to be like getting on the ballot

If you can get on the ballot, you should be able to get public funding. This nonsense of 20-25% is utter crap, and again designed to shut out anybody except the two major parties(some democracy eh)

In addition, I don't think that this bill goes far enough. Contributions shouldn't be voluntary, they should be mandatory, and like I said earlier, tax the shit out of lobbyists. In addition, I believe that every radio, TV and satellite station should be mandated to give X amount of minutes(distributed equally) to each and every candidate. Furthermore, I would like to see them put a time limit on political campaigning as in Britain. I find these campaigns that start months, and in some cases years ahead of the election ridiculous and distracting.

We can do better than this bill, I say chuck the whole thing and start again.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. We're talking about this in the election forum too and Buckley v Valeo

is one way to shut down this bill but it's also how they keep public funding from being mandatory. (Me, I would love for it to be mandatory in conjunction with some sort of new Fairness Doctrine that made sure everyone had equal advertising time.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I am going to write to Dennis Kucinich about this. I had emailed him

about election reform when he was running for prez and even though I didn't receive a reply I still feel he is one of the people in the House who might listen to us about this.

If you know of any other House members who are very strong on election reforms let's see if we can't get them to ask Obey to amend his bill or perhaps introduce a variation of it.

[mdmc]

8. I am glad that they didn't trick you , GPV

this bill is b.a.d....