Clean money means fair elections
06/14/2007
How much will it cost to replace President Bush? What price will be paid to follow in the footsteps of Arnold Schwarzenegger?
By the time the marathon campaign for the White House ends on Nov. 4, 2008, both the next president and his or her runner-up may each have spent a record $500 million.
Here in California, state legislators and Gov. Schwarzenegger have a chance to bring a little more sanity and a tad more equality in the race to succeed him.
As Saundra Sorenson reports this week, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2007, which was introduced in February and amended June 4, would create a system to publicly fund state electoral campaigns.
Kudos to Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) for supporting the measure. Nava expressed doubts that the legislation would ever make it past Schwarzenegger’s desk, but he recognized one of the biggest headaches political candidates face: the more expensive an election is, the more time a candidate has to spend fundraising. This means more private dinners for donors, and less shoe leather left on voters’ doorstops.
But a candidate’s time isn’t the only sacrifice we make for privately funded elections.
We sacrifice the quality candidates that might be found in a neighborhood meeting on Ventura Avenue, a student club on the California State University, Channel Islands Campus, or a waiter serving theater crowds at one of the restaurants next to the Thousand Oaks Civic Center. We sacrifice diversity among the people running for office, and we sacrifice diversity in the messages those candidates can deliver to the California public.
Critics often decry publicly funded elections as an assault on free speech. They claim that restricting campaign spending restricts how candidates can convey their messages. In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision recognized spending limits as limitations on first amendment rights. It also allowed candidates to spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns.
The Reporter is not staffed by constitutional law experts, but it finds trouble equating spending with speech. Yes, dollars allow candidates to buy air time and print advertisements. They also help pay for candidate travel to and from voters homes and communities. But in a world where only those who can afford to pay for a full page ad in the Reporter, a 30-second commercial every hour on Q-104.7, and a booth at the Oxnard Strawberry Festival are the only ones who can get messages out, is everyone’s voice really heard?
What’s more, if the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act passes, candidates with money won’t be prevented from spending whatever they want to run for office. They could use their wallets as mouthpieces as much as they want. But if those without deep pockets can convince friends, neighbors, coworkers and community members to donate $5 to become eligible for matching funds and remain competitive with their more affluent opponents, California could soon see a renaissance of meaningful political discourse.
The clean election system works in Maine, it works in Arizona. Isn’t it time to make it work in the largest, most diverse state in the country?
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT