NOT. BACKING. ANYONE. until Democrats pass public financing for federal campaigns! Senator Durbin?

[flpoljunkie]

From the late, great, unapologetic liberal Molly Ivins, in a column written just over a year ago entitled: NOT. BACKING. HILLARY.

This is for you, Molly, and for us all.

If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this — that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20250

And Senator Durbin, when are you going to introduce the bill you promised on the Senate floor in early January of this year?

In his speech on the floor of the Senate announcing his intention to introduce a full public financing bill, Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-IL) asked his colleagues to think beyond initial ethics reform to a more comprehensive solution: "I hope it will only be the beginning and that we can move, even in this session of Congress, to meaningful hearings and the passage of public financing of campaigns that will truly reform the way we elect men and women to office at the Federal level and restore respect to this great institution of the U.S. Congress, both the House and the Senate. "

http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/01/11/sen-durbins-speech-in-support-of-public-financing

[BayCityProgressive]

1. The Democrats

are NOT going to fix how campaings are run. They love the corporate cash and the cool lobbying jobs they pick up afterwards!

[flpoljunkie]

3. And they never will unless we hold their feet to the fire, send them message we demand reform now!

Pass public financing of federal campaigns in the House, and if the R's don't block it in the Senate and it passes, dare Bush to veto it!

Do this Democrats, and we will see that you are "serious as a heart attack" about cleaning up our corrupt "pay to play" system in Washington, and we will support you with our small donations until we can get a Democratic president who will sign the bill to clean up Washington.

[flpoljunkie]

37. Show us some leg, Dems! Pass public financing in House, if R's don't block in Senate, let Bush veto!

Do this Democrats, show us that you are "serious as a heart attack" about cleaning up our corrupt "pay to play" system in Washington, and we will support you with our small donations--until we can get a Democratic president who will sign the bill and forever change the way business gets done in Washington.

[reprehensor]

2. Good idea.

Time to roll up the Lobbyists too.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Excellent point. Durbin also takes on the lobbyists in his Senate speech last month.

But there is something built into our political system that really has to be debated, that goes to the real heart of this issue; that is, the way we finance our campaigns as elected officials.

Unless you are one of the fortunate few--so wealthy that you can finance your own campaign and never ask for a contribution--most of us spend a good part of our public lives asking for donations. We go to every one we see, from those of modest means who give us small checks to the richest people in America who write much larger checks. It is almost an imperative if you are not wealthy, if you want to finance a campaign, to find millions of dollars to buy the television and radio time to deliver your message in your State. If we really want to get to the heart of restoring the confidence of the American people in our Government, we have to go to the heart of the problem--the way we finance political campaigns.

For many years on Capitol Hill, I resisted the notion of public financing of campaigns. I had some pretty good arguments against it. Why do I want to see public moneys or taxpayer dollars going to crazy candidates representing outlandish causes who have no business in this political process? Well, those arguments held up for a while, but over time I came to understand that while I was arguing against that lunatic fringe in American politics, I was creating a trap for everyone else who was honest and trying to raise enough money to wage an effective campaign.

The time has come for real change. In this last election cycle, which the Presiding Officer knows full well, more money was spent in that off-year election than in the previous Presidential election year. The amount of money going into our political process is growing geometrically. It means that more and more special interest groups and individuals with an agenda are pouring dollars into the political process. It means that our poor, unsuspecting voters are the victims of these driveby ads that come at them night and day for months before a campaign. It means that candidates, both incumbents and challengers, spend month after weary month on the telephone begging for money.

It is no surprise that the same people we are begging money for are the people who are the subject of this ethics legislation--the lobbyists of the special interest groups. We live in this parallel world.

Today, with the passage of this underlying legislation, we will ban a lobbyist buying me lunch. Tomorrow that same lobbyist can have me over for lunch at his lobbying firm to provide campaign funds for my reelection campaign, and it is perfectly legal. What is the difference? From the viewpoint of the person standing on the street looking through the window, there is none. It is the same lobbyist and the same Member of Congress. The fact that one is a political campaign fundraising event and another is a personal lunch is a distinction which will be lost on most of America.

[cascadiance]

5. This IS the fundamental issue that needs to be solved by the next president and congress!

That's why I can't support any DLC affiliated candidate the next election, nor for that matter, anyone that doesn't start to come out and support this sort of legislation. I felt Russell Feingold could be that person, which is why early on I hope he would run. Now that he's said he's not running for president, I'm hoping Al Gore might be that person. Whoever I choose to support in the primaries, if it is someone other than these two, MUST state unequivocally that they are committed to public campaign financing. We need someone to turn off the institutionalized bribery NOW!

K&R

[flpoljunkie]

19. Yes! Support candidate who's unequivocally committed to public campaign financing," but D's can pass

a Clean Money, Clean Elections bill now, and--if it is not blocked in the Senate by the Republicans, dare Bush to veto the bill.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. Public financing: the true key to reform.

One person, one vote, not one dollar, one vote.

[flpoljunkie]

7. And $1 million bundler equals major access to one exceedingly compromised presidential candidate.

[blm]

8. Time to re-submit the 1997 Clean Money, Clean Elections bill from Kerry - Wellstone.

The bill is already written - some states have adopted it now, so Durbin already has the language necessary. As a Dem leader he can re-submit this. And even do it in memory of Wellstone.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Let Kerry and Durbin co-sponsor a Clean Money, Clean Elections bill.

Durbin said this in his January Senate floor speech:

For many years on Capitol Hill, I resisted the notion of public financing of campaigns. I had some pretty good arguments against it. Why do I want to see public moneys or taxpayer dollars going to crazy candidates representing outlandish causes who have no business in this political process? Well, those arguments held up for a while, but over time I came to understand that while I was arguing against that lunatic fringe in American politics, I was creating a trap for everyone else who was honest and trying to raise enough money to wage an effective campaign.

The time has come for real change. In this last election cycle, which the Presiding Officer knows full well, more money was spent in that off-year election than in the previous Presidential election year. The amount of money going into our political process is growing geometrically. It means that more and more special interest groups and individuals with an agenda are pouring dollars into the political process. It means that our poor, unsuspecting voters are the victims of these driveby ads that come at them night and day for months before a campaign. It means that candidates, both incumbents and challengers, spend month after weary month on the telephone begging for money.

more...

http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/01/11/sen-durbins-speech-in-support-of-public-financing

Link to Senator Kerry 's bill, S. 918, Clean Money, Clean Elections Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.+918:

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Short of a constitutional amendment

I think this is an intractable problem.

There's no way to ENFORCE public financing of campaigns and to prohibit individuals or third-party groups from promoting a candidate or point of view. You'd need to amend the constitution to say that political advocacy does not fall under the First Amendment, and woe to any politician who suggests such a thing.

[flpoljunkie]

11. What took you so long to crap on this thread, MonkeyFunk? Public financing can work. It needs

the support of the American people and the will of Congress to change the way they do business in Washington and end our "pay to play" system. Read Durbin's speech.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Sorry if you think it's "crapping"

to point out the constitutional issues involved in this subject.

The Supreme Court has ruled that political speech is the MOST protected speech, and they've also ruled that spending money is a protected part of free speech.

I'm not downplaying the problem - I'm saying the solution isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

I don't see how any law could prevent a billionaire from running an entirely self-financed campaign. I don't see how any law could prevent interested third-parties from engaging in advocacy.

As I said, I believe it would require a constitutional amendment, not just legislation.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Reform does not preclude self-financed campaigns by millionaires. It adjusts public monies so that

those who are not millionaires can compete with those who are.

It can be worked out, if Congress has the will. No, it won't be easy. The big moneyed special interests wil fight it tooth and nail.

And it is already working well in several states. Janet Napolitano was just re-elected in Arizona using public funding.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. But you can't force

a candidate to participate in public financing. So all it takes is one candidate who believes he can raise more money than the public limits allow for, and the system falls apart.

[flpoljunkie]

15. No, you can't, but you can support candidates who will not be beholden to big money.

Someone who will agree to abide by the federal public campaign financing laws. Did you take the time to read Durbin's speech linked above yet?

The time is now to begin the clean up Washington--not hold out for when the Democrats' take control of all the levers of power.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Yes

I read his speech.

As I've been saying, I'm not downplaying the problem. I'm pointing out that for presidential elections, or large-state Senatorial elections, it's unlikely that both candidates would agree to the limits. That's all.

Like most complicated problems, there isn't a simple answer.

[cascadiance]

24. No you can't force some candidates to use public financing...

But you can take away the *forcing* of otherwise decent candidates that want to have nothing to do with the current "institutionalized bribery" system called campaign financing from having to get even some reasonable amount of money for them to be heard out there by the voter.

The key question is how much money is needed at a base level for a candidate to be heard by their constituencies' voters. If we can provide them with that, then they have an option to run where they wouldn't have been able to have it before, and then the voter actually has some people out there running that they can hear about that they know aren't playing the "pay to play" game of the current campaign bribery system. Right now, the voter is pinching their nose not knowing who to vote for as they all have to play this financing game whether they want to or not. The voter is really having a difficult time to know who is on their side and who isn't, as every one of these folks has to find some way of "paying back" their financing costs to some entity some way. Even if they put all of their own money into their campaign, you have to ask whether they hope to leverage that power to put money back into their own pockets too, and only a small elite segment can afford to pay for their own campaigns, which is the same segment being served by the current system now too.

Public financing won't STOP corruption, but it will give us an alternative to choose over it as voters, and if enough decent candidates run that we feel we can trust, we can put into office a whole new generation of politicians that are more inclined to serve us than those who are "buying" them into office. Having the choice is the key, and empowering the citizen to understand that they have this choice and to understand how they can make it intelligently is the key to making something like this work.

Nothing's perfect, but I really don't see any other system that isn't more than just a bandaid over the current problem of institutionalized bribery that we have set up now. And those bandaid solutions keep getting more complex with layers of rules that can be bent so that they may give an illusion of fixing the problem but not fundamentally doing so.

I do believe that there are the Russell Feingold's, etc. in the world in both parties (perhaps Ron Paul in the Republicans?) that will want to get this going so that we can empower them and get more other politicians that can work with them for "people oriented" solutions that serve both Republican and Democratic Party "people" out there!

[flpoljunkie]

25. Great post, calipendence! Thanks!

[Adelante]

31. Perfect phrasing, isn't it?

"institutionalized bribery"

[ProudDad]

27. You CAN make millionaire self-financing irrelevant.

Most public financing proposals (and certainly the only ones that would work) increase the amount the public financed candidate receives to match that of the self-financed (ass-hole).

That's how it would work. Make SURE the playing field is level.

And you might say, "but that will cost a lot of money!"

No, not when compared to the current system. The war lobby probably spent less than $100 million over the last few years to buy a Congress willing to eventually give them a TRILLION dollars in war receipts...

There are other examples. The banking industry paid a few measly millions to buy pukes and dems' votes for that f*ckin bankruptcy bill and fight usury laws -- from which they will make billions.

It would save the taxpayer Soooooooooo much money to provide whatever public financing is necessary to kill the current system for, by and of the rich!

We also would NOT need a constitutional amendment to TAKE OUR AIRWAVES BACK and force big media to provide free airtime for levelling the playing field of on air-campaigning and for real candidate debates.

[flpoljunkie]

32. Most excellent points, proudDad! Taxpayers money spent to fund campaigns would be very well spent!

[Jai4WKC08]

20. How do you stop the "big money interests" from campaigning on their own?

What's to stop any organization, whether a corporation or union, moveon.org or club for growth, from using their money to run ads that promote one candidate or attack the other? Or if I have enough money, or me and my friends can raise enough money and pool it together, how can anyone stop us from buy ad time (ok, maybe the FCC has a role there), renting a billboard, or mailing out flyers, or any other way we choose to exercise our free speech?

I am all for campaign reform in theory. I think the money involved in national campaigns is outrageous and killing our democracy. I hope Congress will at least try to tackle the problem. But ultimately, I'm afraid that no matter what they do, someone will find a way around it. I have NO FAITH that the voters will hang together and not elect candidates who bend the rules or violate the principles involved.

One thing that would help, imo, and might be doable if there is political will, is a return to the fair practices rules in broadcasting. I would also like to see some way of getting rid of the corporate ownership and control of news organizations, but I'm not sure how that could be made to work given the history of commercial broadcasting.

[flpoljunkie]

22. FEC supposedly to police 527 political activities in 2008, but citizens ought not to be prohibited

from banning together to run ads, etc., in a democracy. I have not problem with the FEC policing the 527's--particularly those like the "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" who registered with the IRS as a section 527 group but did not registered with the FEC as a political committee, although they are, in fact, a federal political committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

Not only a return to the fair practices rules in broadcasting, but requiring the television networks to provide free or very reduced air time for candidates, is crucial to taking back our democracy from the big moneyed interests. We the people own the air waves, after all.

[ProudDad]

28. The first step would be to

attack the fiction that a corporation is a "person".

This was NEVER the law of the land but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Congress should immediately and relentlessly attack this bullshit concept...

[flpoljunkie]

30. That, and not allowing lobbyists to serve as campaign fundraisers for Congress members.

What is legal in our system of "legalized bribery" is truly mindboggling.

[iconocrastic]

17. I'm not backing anyone who puts their ego ahead of the country's business

We elect Congress to work for the people, not to aggrandize themselves and then threaten the military if they don't get their little whims. Boy am I steamed.

[blm]

21. Who is doing that? care to share your insight?

.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Kick!

:dem:

[flpoljunkie]

23. What's the rush? The first televised debate won't be until April 5th in NH!

Read somewhere the R's will go first on April 4th, 2007. I know the political pundits and talking heads will be obsessed with the so-called "money primary," but we do not have to succumb. Let's keep our powder dry, and not be taken for granted.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/archive/2007_01_12_archive.html

Friday, January 12, 2007

CNN/WMUR/Union Leader to host first presidential debates
DNC Chairman Howard Dean expresses support for debates

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New Hampshire's two leading news organizations will partner with CNN to host two presidential debates in April, executives with the three media companies announced Friday.

CNN, WMUR and The New Hampshire Union Leader will hold the back-to-back debates on April 4 and 5, the first such events to be held of the 2008 presidential campaign. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate the debates with questions coming from WMUR's Scott Spradling and Union Leader's John DiStaso. WMUR's Jennifer Vaughn will be moderating questions from the audience. The debate will be televised live nationally on CNN and throughout New Hampshire on WMUR.

"We are thrilled to provide our viewers with the information to make the most informed decision possible when they are voting in their presidential primaries or caucusing," said CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in an interview Friday that he thinks the April 2007 New Hampshire debate is "important" and noted he hopes to attend the event.

[flpoljunkie]

26. Speaking of CFR, NYT says it's business as usual or worse, after passage of so-called lobby reform

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/politics/11trips.html?ei=5094&en=e1bbc0cbbdc25f89&hp=&ex=1171170000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

February 11, 2007
Congress Finds Ways to Avoid Lobbyist Limits

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — The 110th Congress opened with the passage of sweeping new rules intended to curb the influence of lobbyists by prohibiting them from treating lawmakers to meals, trips, stadium box seats or the discounted use of private jets.

But it did not take long for lawmakers to find ways to keep having lobbyist-financed fun.

In just the last two months, lawmakers invited lobbyists to help pay for a catalog of outings: lavish birthday parties in a lawmaker’s honor ($1,000 a lobbyist), martinis and margaritas at Washington restaurants (at least $1,000), a California wine-tasting tour (all donors welcome), hunting and fishing trips (typically $5,000), weekend golf tournaments ($2,500 and up), a Presidents’ Day weekend at Disney World ($5,000), parties in South Beach in Miami ($5,000), concerts by the Who or Bob Seger ($2,500 for two seats), and even Broadway shows like “Mary Poppins” and “The Drowsy Chaperone” (also $2,500 for two).

The lobbyists and their employers typically end up paying for the events, but within the new rules.

Instead of picking up the lawmaker’s tab, lobbyists pay a political fund-raising committee set up by the lawmaker. In turn, the committee pays the legislator’s way.Lobbyists and fund-raisers say such trips are becoming increasingly popular, partly as a quirky consequence of the new ethics rules. By barring lobbyists from mingling with a lawmaker or his staff for the cost of a steak dinner, the restrictions have stirred new demand for pricier tickets to social fund-raising events. Lobbyists say that the rules might even increase the volume of contributions flowing from K Street, where many lobbying firms have their offices, to Congress.

much more...

[flpoljunkie]

29. Steny "K Street" Hoyer sided with John Boehner when questioned about this article on MTP.

This, sadly, is no surprise. Hoyer agrees with Boehner that all that's needed is disclosure, and that neither the American people or Congress would support taxpayers' money being used to fund Congressional campaigns.

These corrupted politicians like the system the way it is. They have the upper hand when lobbyists are legally allowed to fill their campaign coffers, making them less vulnerable to challengers. It is a rigged game, and the American people are the losers. A Congressman enthalled to a lobbyist who serve as his campaign fundraiser is one compromised legislator.

What is legal in our system of campaign fundraising is truly astounding. If the American people understood this, they would demand public financing of federal campaigns. Unfortunately, they do not.

[flpoljunkie]

33. Here's the transcript from MTP for those who would defend Steny "K Street" Hoyer.

Notice how very quickly, Hoyer pivots from saying public financing is the ultimate way to go, to the public will not support public financing, "so you're going to have fund-raising" and then he immediately agrees with Boehner that the answer is "public disclosure." The man won't even say "full disclosure"--which, although commendable, is not going to change the way business is done in Washington.

"But, very frankly, the answer ultimately is if you’re going to stop that, it’s public financing. Neither the public nor the Congress is going to support public financing, so you’re going to have fund-raising. So whatever way you do that is going to be subject to scrutiny. And I agree with John, public disclosure so the public knows what’s going on is—until you get the public financing—the only way the public can check that. - Steny Hoyer

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/2 /

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to a domestic issue. In the front page of The New York Times today, talking about ethics and—dealing with lobbyists. Congress passed legislation, people said, “We’re going to take money out of this system.” And yet, look at this article. And I’ll read it for you and our viewers: “Congress Finds Ways to Avoid Lobbyist Limits. The 110th Congress opened with the passage of new rules intended to curb the influence of lobbyists by prohibiting them from treating lawmakers to meals, trips, stadium box seats or the discounted use of private jets. But it did not take long for lawmakers to find ways to keep having lobbyist-financed fun. In just the last two months, lawmakers invited lobbyists to help pay for a catalog of outings: lavish birthday parties in a lawmaker’s honor ($1,000 a lobbyist), martinis and margaritas at Washington restaurants (at least $1,000), a California wine-tasting tour (all donors welcome), hunting and fishing trips (typically $5,000), weekend golf tournaments ($2,500 and up), a Presidents’ Day weekend at Disney World ($5,000). ... The lobbyists and their employers typically end up paying for the events, but within the new rules. Instead of picking up the lawmaker’s tab, lobbyists pay a political fund-raising committee set up by the lawmaker. In turn, the committee pays the legislator’s way.”

So rather than have the lobbyist fund the trip, you create a campaign committee. That campaign committee has this event, the lobbyist gives money to the campaign committee, and the campaign committee pays for the congressman’s trip. It’s just a way to circumvent a law you just passed.

REP. BOEHNER: Tim, we, we raise political money to run campaigns. Democrats do it, and Republicans do it. When, when we put in the campaign finance laws, the Shays-Meehan bill a number of years ago, I voted against it because I thought it was nonsense. I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. But there, there are a number of different ways that we go about raising those funds. Some of these are golf events, some of them are, are receptions, some of them are dinners.

REP. HOYER: Tim, let...

MR. RUSSERT: Will you—will you try to close this loophole?

REP. HOYER: Tim, let me say that, in terms of this loophole, what we did when we came to the Congress, we adopted some ethics rules which are going to make sure that, first of all, you can’t get meals, you can’t live off lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Some members did that; some members are now out of Congress and in jail. You cannot have lobbyists or organizations pay for your travel on their private jets. We said that’s not going to happen. You can’t do it even with your own money. Now, as John pointed out, there is fund-raising. Fund-raisings usually have a reception, a dinner or an event of some type. That was not dealt with in those rules, and that’ll be dealt with in the campaign finance rules. But, very frankly, the answer ultimately is if you’re going to stop that, it’s public financing. Neither the public nor the Congress is going to support public financing, so you’re going to have fund-raising. So whatever way you do that is going to be subject to scrutiny. And I agree with John, public disclosure so the public knows what’s going on is—until you get the public financing—the only way the public can check that.

REP. BOEHNER: There aren’t any of my taxpayers who’ll want their hard-earned tax money that they’re paying to the government to be given to politicians so they can throw mud at each other.

REP. HOYER: I tend to agree with John that the public doesn’t support that...

MR. RUSSERT: So this, this will...

REP. HOYER: ...for just those reasons.

MR. RUSSERT: This will go on?

REP. HOYER: Fund-raising’s going to go on. So however it’s—if you have a reception, Tim, as you know, you’ve been to some. If you have a...

MR. RUSSERT: Not—not political fund-raisers.

REP. HOYER: No, no...

MR. RUSSERT: I don’t do political fund-raisers.

REP. HOYER: OK, fine, but you’ve been to receptions. And hardly anybody has just a fund-raiser, say send me money. They have an event. And they have, usually, food and drink at the event. That’s the way the fund-raisers are carried out, as you know.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Considereing how well the Presidential public financing is working,

why do you beleive that this would work for Congress?

[flpoljunkie]

36. Public financing can be made to work. It is working well in several states, but Congress must be

committed to it--and they will fight it. Steny Hoyer made that quite plain in his appearance on MTP yesterday. Many members of Congress like things in Washington just the way they are.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a speech on the Senate floor in mid-January that he will present a bill for public financing of federal campaigns in the coming weeks. Senator Kerry might want to join forces with Durbin as he introduced the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 1997. This bill had provisions for free and/or reduced tv time--this is what makes campaigns so obscenely expensive.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.+918:

The public must demand Congress put the public interest first--rather than the special interests, who fill their campaign coffers and ward off any serious competition in their re-election campaigns.

No question it will not happen if we do not hold their feet to the fire and demand they change the way business is done in Washington.

[hijinx87]

35. single issue voting is the equivalent

of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

and it doesn't matter what the single issue is. there is
a rich vein of unmined progressive issues that need to be
tended to.

we need to be looking at this in it's entirety.