Campaign Financing

While this is not strictly a Constitutional issue, Clean Campaign Financing is critical to preserving the Constitution. I'm sure if the framers could have foreseen multi-national companies setting up lobby shops on K Street and actually writing legislation (not to mention the revolving door for government officials becoming lobbyists - something that was ILLEGAL when I was a civil servant), they would have written a provision into the Constitution that none of the branches may be influenced by nor take money from anyone other than the individual sovereign citizens. There would have been a provision that corporations and other large organizations do not get the same treatment as the individual sovereigns.

It's part of the spirit of the document, and is validated by the rationale the framers wrote in their various personal papers and in the Federalist Papers.

I suspect they would be horrified to see our elected representatives spend half their election-year days on the phone or visiting with campaign contributors so they can get contributions to run expensive sound-byte TV ads. In other developed democracies, TV ads are forbidden, and TV exposure is limited to pro bono time of no less than five minutes where the candidates may detail their platforms and positions.

[That's something that would do the wishy-washy Dems some good, frankly. Force them to buck up, stop whining about the Repugs and their wedge politics, and set some firm goals of their own. The Dems must start standing up FOR the People, not against the Repugs. They must ignore the negative, emotional, and divisive strategies of the Repugs and focus on their positive accomplishments, past and future. (Present accomplishments are debatable, although there is a core group that really is trying to do positive things.) Of course standing up takes political courage: Look at what happened to war hero John Kerry when he was "swift boated": It knocked all the wind out of his windsurfer, and he didn't have the gumption to tell them where to shove it. So political courage is obviously in very short supply these days in DC. That's another reason why the States may end up being our saving grace on these issues.]

In these other democracies, the PEOPLE pay for the campaigns. They are publicly financed. It's ironic that the one democracy in the world where the People are specifically designated as the Sovereigns of the nation (that's right, we're the honchos) is the one where corporate money has the most influence, and the people the least. Sure, we cast the votes, but not based on personal investment. We cast votes based on the best corporate public-relations money can buy. And if we're using a Diebold machine, chances are our vote is going to the Diebold candidate, regardless of the vote WE cast.

But some states are cleaning up. As with the movement to repudiate the Unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act and the movement to begin grassroots impeachment, some states are setting rules about conflicts of interest. (No more Bush state campaign chairs like Harris and Blackwell also running the state's voting apparachik.) Some are getting very careful about their voting equipment and raising the issue at the National Governor's Association that all Federal elections should follow the same rules from state to state. Some are establishing campaign finance rules. Some are creating funds to start contributing public money to campaigns, to begin the drive toward publicly financed elections.

Vermont suffered a bit of a set back with SCOTUS yesterday:

High Court Strikes State's Campaign Fund Limits

But something notable was NOT challenged by SCOTUS. Vermont established its rules for the express purpose of challenging the idiotic idea that money equals free speech. Anyone with a speck of common sense (something Vermonters are known for, even if they are a bit eccentric), anyone who is unencumbered by a sense of superiority or entitlement (i.e., having a chip of superiority on his or her shoulder), KNOWS that money cannot equal speech. If money equalled speech, then ALL of us could have done what Warren Buffet did this week when he contributed $30+ BILLION to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And everyone would have equal ability to run for office.

Money is a used in quid pro quo exchange. Speech is freely given. They are apples and oranges. And in political campaigns, the difference is that candidates cannot run for office on a level playing field, and voters cannot discern the good candidates from the bad ones because all we hear is expensive propaganda paid for with corporate money. (Unless we happen to be among the few who actually follow the voting records, sponsorship, and committee activities of our delegations.)

My Campaign Finance / Clean Campaign hero is Doris "Granny D" Haddock. Visit her website to learn more about how one senior woman has awakened a sleeping giant - the Progressive movement of this country - to the fundamental necessity for clean campaigns. We cannot have a true democracy without them, we cannot achieve the goals WE THE PEOPLE seek as long as corporations have the upper hand. We simply cannot use our Constitution as our framers intended. There is NO more fundamental impediment to our democracy today than K Street.

We can't have it both ways: Choose. Oligarchy or Democracy?

Granny D and Clean Campaigns