Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Fair Elections Now Act’

Three steps forward, two steps back on campaign finance in Congress today

Posted in Campaign Finance, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2010 |

Today, the US House Administration Committee voted the Fair Elections Now Act out of committee.  San Antonio Representative Charlie Gonzalez cast a decisive vote in favor of the bill, putting a bill that would give optional public financing to all Congressional candidates for further than it has ever gone before.

Tell Charlie Gonzalez how you feel– thank him for his vote and leadership by calling his office at (202) 225-3236 (DC) or (210) 472-6195 (San Antonio).

Unfortunately, in the Senate, Republicans continued to filibuster the DISCLOSE Act.  They did this a few months ago, too. At the time Public Citizen’s Craig Holman had this to say about it, and we think it’s still apt.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsCSjRslmm4]

Texas Senators Cornyn and Hutchison voted in favor of corporate special interests who want to hide how they’re pulling the strings in Washington, and I think you should tell them so.

And because no punchbowl for Fair Elections would be complete without some corporate tool laying a dookie in it, enter Texas Rep. Joe Barton, who you may remember apologized to BP, feeling the oil-spilling giant had been mistreated by Congress.  Well, he’s still apologizing to corporations, now saying that his committee should hold hearings on Fair Elections Now, which he’s already made up his mind on (hint:  he ain’t fer it.) This is nothing more than a massive delay tactic, just like the time he made a rule that all amendments to Waxman-Markey be read aloud in committee, so the committee hired a speed-reader.

In any case, we still have a lot to be happy about.  There is some possibility we could get a full vote on Fair Elections Now before the end of the year in the House– if your member of Congress hasn’t publicly stated they will support it, they need to hear from you!  And if they have stated their support, call them anyway and thank them for standing up to special interests.

By the by, I’ll be at the National Coffee Party Convention in Louisville the next few days, where I’ll be presenting on a couple of panels about these very issues.  If you want to participate virtually, you can!  From Coffee Party’s email:

The big news today is that we are LIVE STREAMING the convention from Louisville starting at 8:30 AM ET tomorrow (Friday). Convention participants, both in person and via webcast can interact via Twitter (#CoffeeParty), Facebook, on our convention website, main website and on our newly created Ustream channel.

CLICK HERE for today’s press release about added speaker John Avlon, and HERE for Monday’s release about Lt. Dan Choi and Fair Elections Now.

We are especially excited about livestreaming the Mock Constitutional Convention on Saturday from 10:30am-4:30pm co-chaired by Lawrence Lessig and Mark McKinnon.

To read about the speakers, CLICK HERE. To review the schedule of events, CLICK HERE. To read about the break-out sessions, CLICK HERE.

You can still REGISTER online. You can also register in person at the registration desk when you arrive at the Galt House.

We are currently raising funds for the following purposes: $5,000 for Audio/Visual expenses, including production and live-streaming costs that are allowing us to document as many workshops and panel discussions as we can, which will become on-line educational tools available to the public.

It would be tremendously helpful if you could donate for this. $5, $10, $20, any amount would help.

DONATE

The convention and the web cast will wrap up Sunday night with a viewing party of MTV Networks’ television world premiere of “9500 Liberty.” This is the film that Eric Byler and I co-directed that documents how the extremists dominated the debate over immigration in Prince William County, VA in 2007 & 2008 and how the silent majority organized and restored balance to the government. On Sunday, the film will be broadcast to 100 milion homes across America.

This video explains how the lessons of 9500 Liberty inspired the creation of the Coffee Party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8sQUYarTig

See you in Louisville, or, we’ll see you online! And, thank you so much for being part of the Coffee Party community.

Good night, good luck, and see you around the coffee pot.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Voters steamed at Supreme Court over Citizens United

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , on February 11, 2010 |

Where are the torches and pitchforks when we need them? (Or the tar and feathers?)  According to a new poll released today, voters by a margin of 2 to 1 disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v FEC.

LOLCats depiction of who benefits from Supreme Court ruling

Other big results?

Asked if special interests have too much influence, 74 percent of respondents said yes. Asked if members of Congress are “controlled by” the groups and people who finance their political campaigns, a whopping 79 percent said yes.

Only 24 percent of the voters said ordinary citizens can still influence politicians, and just 18 percent agreed with the notion that lawmakers listen to voters more than to their financial backers.

Voters also issued a harsh assessment of President Barack Obama’s promises to change Washington and limit the influence of special interests.

A majority — 51 percent — now believe the clout of corporations and other special interests has increased since he took office, while only 32 percent said their influence has decreased.

***

But according to the survey, about 51 percent of Republicans said they opposed the court decision, while 37 percent favored it. The ratio was even more lopsided among Republican voters who backed Republican candidates in 2008. Among those respondents, 56 percent oppose the ruling, and just 33 percent support it.

“It’s important for Republicans to see this research and hear this message,” said McKinnon (an Austin, TX-based Republican political strategist).

Among all voters, 64 percent surveyed opposed the ruling, and 27 percent approved of it.

The survey found that voters supported the Fair Elections Now Act, 62 percent to 31 percent. Among independents, support rose to 67 percent. The poll also found that voters were more likely to support a candidate who backed such reforms.

Support is also strong for a variety of other proposals introduced since the court ruling was issued last month.

A whopping 80 percent of voters back a requirement that corporations receive approval from shareholders before spending money on political activities. About 60 percent back a proposal to ban foreign-owned corporations from spending money to influence elections.

You say you want a Revolution? Go join in the fun over at www.dontgetrolled.org.  Already added your name to the hundreds of thousands of other Americans who want to stand up for our rights?  Tell your friends and family and get them signed up, too.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Joe Barton Fact Check on Citizens United

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , on February 4, 2010 |

This morning on NPR, Congressman Joe Barton (R-Arlington/Ennis) made some statements on how the massive influx of corporate money because of the Citizens United decision might not be so bad after all.  The entire story is worth a listen, and can be found by going here to NPR’s website.

Here’s what he said, and let’s evaluate some of these claims.

“It’s not giving corporate money to the campaign committees or the candidate, it’s using their own money to say ‘Congressman Joe Barton is doing a good job’, ‘Please vote for Joe Barton in the upcoming election, paid for by…. uhhh, I don’t know… Texas Industries.'”

Barton is essentially correct.  Corporations cannot give directly to candidates or committees.  But the general rule in competitive campaigns for the last 20 or so years is that outside actors spend more money than the candidates themselves and that voters often don’t differentiate between candidate sponsored communications and outside groups running their ads. The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which Citizens United struck down key portions of, has alleviated some of that confusion in voters minds by requiring candidates to say who they are and that they approve that message.

The problem with outside money is that corporations don’t have to identify themselves when they’re running ads, except with some fine print at the bottom of a screen. You may have heard of MoveOn.org, but do you have any idea who gave them money? No, and it’s impossible to find out.  What about the very nice sounding “America’s Power” or “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices”– sounds nice until you find out they are front groups for the oil and coal lobby.  And here’s a telling foreshadowing of what this coming election season are really going to look like from Josh Harkinson:

In strident speech in Washington this morning, US Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue renewed his assault on the Obama agenda and pledged to fight the President’s allies in the 2010 elections. The Chamber will wage “the largest, most aggressive” campaign in it’s 100-year history, he said, to “highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda, and hold accountable those who don’t.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Congressman Pete Sessions ties to indicted financier Stanford includes email saying “I love you”

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2010 |

What’s the difference between the Pete Sessions / Allen Stanford scandal and Pretty Woman?

A: Julia Roberts won’t kiss you– for any amount of money

The bubbling scandal over the “mini Madoff”, R. Allen Stanford, and the Ponzi scheme he (allegedly) engineered in his bank, Stanford Financial, continues to percolate and slime everyone he had dealings with.

Let’s briefly reset the stage, shall we? Sir R. Allen Stanford was a relatively big financier, meaning he would take your money, invest it, then give you a healthy return.  Of course, what he is accused of doing by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is “massive ongoing fraud” of investment funds worth over $8 billion.  Allegations are that Stanford would take your money, use it to pay other clients who had previously invested with him, and then take money from others and give it to you—this is what is known as a “Ponzi scheme” and is the same thing Bernie Madoff was convicted of.  But with Stanford it’s much less clear, as many of his bank accounts are hidden in notorious banking black holes in various Caribbean islands, so Stanford is not yet convicted of anything: we should continue to give him the presumption of innocence that our legal system affords him.  Ditto on the allegations that he laundered money for the Mexican Gulf Cartel or cheated on his personal and property taxes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

However, the following are facts which are NOT in dispute.  Stanford threw money around Congress and various elections like it was water, with over $2.4 million given to various candidates from Stanford, Stanford Financial’s PAC, and its employees bundling their donations.  These donations were often given to individuals who sat on committees who would mark up a bill which would regulate financial securities and clamp down on fraud– the same fraud he is now alleged to have been perpetrating. Convenient, no? (more…)

Read Full Post »

Power to the People: The Fair Elections Now Act

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 2, 2009 |

As early as the time of Socrates, people have identified money as a corruptive influence in politics, specifically in democracies.  Elections now cost double and triple what they used to, which means more and more of our Senators’ and Representatives’ time is spent dialing for dollars.  The average member of the House of Representatives will want to raise and spend over a million dollars (that’s $1,000,000) to insure victory on Election Day.  In a competitive race, it can be much, much more than that.

So why do we subject our leaders to this grueling and wasteful misuse of their precious time and energy? And why are we surprised when Big Money holds more sway than the Common Good and Reasoned Argument? Ultimately, we get the government we deserve- because we force our politicians to raise money this way, and so we shouldn’t be surprised when campaign “donors” think that their “donations” mean that they should get special favors or special access.  More than ever, voters feel dissillusioned and cynical about government and feel disconnected from their leaders. (And can you blame them?)

So what is the answer? Why not allow those who represent us to circumvent this whole process?  One piece of legislation designed to do this is the Fair Elections Now Act.

What is the Fair Election Now Act? This bi-partisan bill was introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Arlen Specter (PA) in the Senate, and by Representatives John Larson (D- CT) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R- NC)  in the House of Representatives. It will provide public funding for office seeking political candidates who qualify, in addition to small private donations up to $100 dollars. Also, all qualifying candidates get a reduction rate on media fees for campaigning purposes, as well as media vouchers that they can exchange for cash if they prefer.

This bill will provide an equal playing field for political candidates, as money differences will play less of a role in the campaign, and therefore provide lesser-known candidates a more fair chance to compete in political races. Public Funding has already been successfully tested in several states, and it can hopefully achieve the same success on a federal level.

Who will qualify for Public Funding? The amount of public funding that each individual candidate receives will depend on the office they are seeking or holding, but each candidate must first qualify by raising a set amount of small donations. For example, House Members running for office must receive 1,500 contributions from their state, and $50,000 altogether. All candidates must therefore prove that they have the ability to raise money for their campaign and thereby demonstrating their competitive ability in the race before they can receive public funding.

Why you should support this bill and how to help get this bill passed! Simple: the status quo is broken. Everyone understands that lobbyists and corporate institutions (PACs, bundlers, etc)  benefit from the current system where big money buys big access.

Voters will first and foremost benefit, because they can be sure their Representatives are ONLY representing them, and basing their votes on what is best for their constituents, not what makes their donors happy.  Furthermore, we will have a fair and wide range of politically qualified candidates to choose from in each election– areas that have enacted public financing, such as Maine and Arizona, have seen a more diverse group of candidates run, resulting in representation that looks more like the population.

The candidates themselves will also benefit, because they can focus more on policies that their constituents favor and their political message instead of constantly raising money for their campaign. In addition, the main contributions are increasingly coming from big donors that come with strings attached. With the Fair Election Now Act, the people have the chance to take back the power of democracy and away from corporate interests!

It is the responsibility of each citizen to ensure our freedom and democracy,and YOU can help the pass this bill for the sake of those crucial values. If you are interested in supporting this bill, you can take one easy step and click here to sign up for a petition. For more detailed information about the bill, please click here.

You can also call your member of Congress and ask them to co-sponser this bipartisan piece of legislation.  Click here to get contact info for who represents you.  As of now, six members of the Texas Congressional Delegation have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.  If you’re lucky enough to be represented by one of them, call their offices and express your thanks for standing up to Big Money interests.

Gene Green (Houston)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (Houston)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (Dallas)

Solomon Ortiz (Corpus Christi)

Silvestre Reyes (El Paso)

Lloyd Doggett (Austin)

By Harrison

Read Full Post »

Tom Craddick Laundered Money through Jobs PAC to House Dems, Texans for Public Justice files in complaint

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , on October 5, 2009 |

Tom Craddick, the former Speaker of the Texas House and currently a Republican  incumbent Texas House Member, has given money to his favorite incumbent Democratic Representatives. So, what’s the problem? Craddick laundered the money through a PAC instead of a direct contribution. In response, Texans for Public Justice, a political advocacy group, has filed a formal complaint to the Texas Ethics Commission, claiming this is illegal.

Here’s what happened: Craddick gave $250,000 to the Texas Jobs & Opportunity Build A Secure Future PAC (Jobs PAC) on January 10, 2008, along with instructions to distribute the money to incumbent Democratic Representatives; Kevin Bailey, Dawnna Dukes, Kino Flores, and Aaron Pena. Each representative was offered $50,000. All the Representatives, except Dukes who was wary of already existing criticism about ties to Craddick from her opponent, accepted the money.
According to Texas Campaign Finance laws (Texas Election Code Chapter 253.001), contributing money through any intermediary organization without disclosing its original source is illegal. However, it probably happens more than voters will ever know, as it does not leave a paper trail back to the original contributor.

Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald says: “Tom Craddick wanted to move tens of thousands of dollars to his favorite Democrats without letting voters know. Hiding the true source of campaign funds is illegal. Craddick could have contributed the money directly and openly. Instead, he used Texas Jobs to launder his money and keep Texans in dark.” This issue, therefore, deals with more than disregarding Campaign Finance Laws; this is behavior that also leads to voter ignorance.

And here comes the rub with most campaign finance problems: it’s not necessarily the recipients who are at fault here.  Craddick, in an attempt at political payback, gave money to those who had voted for him as Speaker.  As in most cases with campaign finance laws, we walk a very fine line between bribery, kickbacks, etc and legitimate donations.  The public can’t know what was in the mind and heart of Rep Craddick, much less those of Bailey, Pena, and Flores (who, we should note, none of whom voted for Craddick’s re-election for Speaker in 2009)– BUT only by instituting a system of public financing can we be certain that our candidates are running clean and are only representing the wishes of their constituents.  I think it would be a great step forward for public confidence in elections and also rid our elected officials of the task of fundraising, something not one elected official I know claims to like.  Win-Win-Win.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: The Church of Money, Rod Blagojevich and Bill Richardson

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2009 |

UPDATE: Bill Richardson was cleared of any wrongdoing in this fund raising scandal  and we wanted to briefly comment on it and also resurrect this post, which to this day remains one of our most read blogs ever.

As I commented in response to some of your reader’s comments below, the point was never to drag Gov. Richardson through the mud.  Indeed, considering his eventual vindication, it re-emphasizes the point that if we had a system of public financing, no politician would ever face erroneous charges such as this.

Money muddies the water, both for the good public servant and the bad politician , and anyone we force to raise private campaign cash we are asking them to prostitute their opinions on the altar of political expediency.  And we get the system we deserve because of it.

Original Post: Jan 5, 2009

I’ve heard it said that churches are supposed to make bad men good and good men better.  Our campaign finance system seems to do the opposite: make good men bad and bad men worse (ie, Governors Richardson and Blagojevich, respectively).  As far back as Socrates, outside observers have noticed the corruptive influence of money on public policy.  Our public servants worshiping at the altar of campaign donations is sure path to hell for most of us.  But the fact that we force them to do so by not providing a public financing system begs the question: Are we getting what we deserve?

As Richardson withdraws his name for consideration of being Commerce Secretary, more and more details are coming out about his ethical problems.  Did he take campaign donations that changed his votes?  Possibly, or at least there’s enough of an ethical cloud there that no one can know for sure.

And that’s the problem with how we finance our campaigns.  No one can ever be truly sure that their Legislators, Representatives, Senators, Mayors, Governors, or Presidents are taking a position because of the merits of the proposals themselves, or because someone with deep pockets convinced them that’s how they should vote.  The same can be said of incoming Senatorial appointee Roland Burris.  It’s surely not his fault that Blagojevich is a slimeball, but the public just can’t be certain that he was appointed based on his merits alone and not because Blagojevich had some ulterior motive.

The only way to remove all doubt is by supporting public financing.  We can only hope during this next Congress that we see some real leadership on this issue so that We the People can know that we are, indeed, still the ones in charge of our government and not the other way around.

Read Full Post »

Austin Congressman Lloyd Doggett supports Fair Elections Now!

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , on June 11, 2009 |

We were ecstatic when we heard from Congressman Doggett’s office that he would be signing on as an original cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, a bill which would create a public financing system for Congressional candidates.

Public financing means that instead of spending hours a day raising money on the phone, our elected leaders can instead take money allocated to them by the government for their campaigns.  No longer would any constituent have to worry that their leaders could be “bought” by their campaign donations, and no campaign donor could ever try to attach any strings, real or implied, to their donations.

Public Citizen has long been an advocate for getting money out of Washington. This is the biggest and best step we can take to make this happen.

Congressman Doggett is a leader on this issue, and will hopefully bring more attention to this issue as it moves along.  We’d like to thank him, and hope you will as well, by calling his Austin office 512-916-5921 or by writing a letter to the editor of the Austin American Statesman or your other local paper (I’m looking at you, Hays County — he’s your Rep too!)

We’re all incredibly lucky to have a Representative like Congressman Doggett.  He is joined in support of Fair Elections Now by Rep. Gene Green of Houston.  Silvestre Reyes of El Paso is also on the record for supporting public financing, but has not yet signed on to the bill.

Read Full Post »

Houston’s Congressman Gene Green Another Swing on Climate Change Legislation

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 6, 2009 |

We’ve been putting a lot of effort into pressuring US Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to support a strong climate change bill, but according to an article in the Houston Chronicle this morning, Congressman Gene Green from Houston is another key swing vote on cap and trade:

A 17-year veteran of Washington politics known for his low-key style and behind-the-scenes approach to legislation, Rep. Gene Green has seen his popularity skyrocket in recent days — at least with lawmakers eager to write new climate change rules.

The celebrity status comes courtesy of Green’s role as one of a handful of moderate Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee. His support is crucial to advancing a sweeping energy and climate change bill.

Looks like Gene Green wants to vote for the bill, but won’t support it without some pretty significant concessions to industry.  Shocking.

The good news for Waxman, Markey and other proponents of the so-called cap-and-trade plan is that Green believes “the United States has to lead” in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The bad news? Green worries about the potential price tag for oil refiners along the Houston Ship Channel he represents.

“I’d like to vote for a bill,” Green said. “But I’m not going to vote for one unless I think it’s going to be good for the area I represent.”

Green has become the main lawmaker pushing for free allowances for refiners, as one of just four Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee representing states with big refining operations. The others are Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

In order to support the bill, Green wants to give away 5% of pollution permits to refineries for free, and hand over 40% of allowances to utilities.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, GIVING AWAY ALLOWANCES IS A TERRIBLE WAY TO WRITE THIS BILL.

As I wrote a few weeks ago in a blog post scolding Charlie Gonzalez on this same issue,

Charlie Gonzalez just doesn’t have his facts straight on this one. If you’re really concerned about consumers, giving away pollution credits for free is about the worst way you can write this bill. Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions. There is a right and a very wrong way to write a good climate change bill, and Charlie is supporting the wrong way.

EPA’s most recent analysis say that giving away pollution credits is “highly regressive”, meaning it hurts low-income families the most. At best, this is a bailout and a free ride for the polluters. At worst it will create windfall profits for huge energy companies at the expense of every lower and middle income family in Texas.

Whether Green can make this bill good for the area he represents depends on what he means by “area.”  If by “area”, Green is referring to his constituency, which is a majority-minority district made up of primarily low and middle income families, Green is going to have to think again.  Giving away pollution allowances to industry sells out working families.  It allows industry to jack up their prices without doing any real work to reduce their emissions and charge families extra for their “compliance costs”.

If this was just our opinion here at Public Citizen, you could dismiss it, but everybody agrees that giving away pollution credits for free hurts poor and working families.  Who?  Well, the Wall Street Journal, for one:

“There are a lot of things in the bill I need to have changed,” said Rep. Gene Green (D., Texas). Mr. Green, whose district is home to the largest petrochemical complex in the world, wants Mr. Waxman to give some pollution permits to oil refiners for free. “If that’s not in the bill, I can’t vote for it,” he said.

Refiners are lobbying to get for free 30% of the pollution permits, an amount that corresponds roughly to the share of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions produced by transportation fuel. Without such allowances, the industry says, it will lose out to refineries in India and the Middle East that ship their product to the U.S. and don’t operate under carbon caps at home.

“The electric utilities want 40%, and if they’re getting 40%, the refiners say ‘Why shouldn’t we get 30%?”‘ Mr. Green said. Mr. Green said he has asked Mr. Waxman to give the refining industry a smaller share of the allowances — roughly 5%.

Economists say generally that consumer prices will rise regardless of whether permits are given away for free, and that giving them away for free will divert money from other purposes in the public interest, such as tax cuts for consumers.

As we mentioned before, the EPA’s analysis showed that giving away credits was “highly regressive.” When both our government’s environmental agency and our nation’s top conservative-dominated-hard-headed-economist-driven-Australian-tycoon-run newspaper agree on something, there’s a consensus, people.

Ok– time to put on our tin foil hats for a moment– but one explanation these actions is that when Gene Green is talking about his “area”, he really means the five refineries and “more chemical plants than (he)  can count” inside his district.  Green received significant campaign contributions from both the Oil & Gas and Electric Utilities industries.  Check out the following chart from OpenSecrets.org:

genegreenchart

To put these numbers in perspective, Green spent a total of $860,643 on his last campaign.  Of that, $139, 949 came from the same folks Green is now trying to score free pollution credits.

If that weren’t enough, it looks like the refineries don’t even know their own business.  They claim that paying for carbon will hurt them and force refining to markets like China who aren’t regulating their environment.  Well, first, a new economic analysis shows that “Cap and Trade Won’t Push Heavy Industries Overseas”.  Second, on what planet does it make economic sense to pump oil out of Texas, ship it literally halfway around the world to China, refine it, and then ship it back?  You would need a PRETTY hefty price on carbon to make that economically feasible.  And lastly, China is beginning to implement export taxes on steel and other carbon intensive products, making it even more unlikely that refining would ever move there.

Bottom line: Green can’t have his cake and eat it too on this one.  He can either protect the families in his district by supporting a full auction of pollution credits that puts the revenue to work in renewable energy, energy efficiency programs, and rebates, or he can fill the pockets of polluters by demanding free carbon giveaways.

And, I do need to give Green some props– he is sponsoring the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a public financing system for Congressional campaigns, freeing him forever from having to raise money from the fossil fuel industries or other special interests whose views may not coincide exactly with the greater good of the people of the 29th congressional district.  We can only hope for such a world– we know Gene Green has to raise money for his campaigns, he certainly can’t get it from the working class people of his district, and we know that when special interests give it is not out of the kindess of their hearts but because they want access and influence.

Read Full Post »

Wall Street’s crisis shows need for Fair Elections

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , , , , , on September 24, 2008 |

Make no mistake about it, we face an economic crisis of enormous proportions. But the rush to bail out Wall Street firms with a “hair on fire” urgency rings so hollow when you consider how much the American people have already gone through. Millions of people have lost their homes to foreclosures. Many are being forced onto the streets, as tent cities are popping up in major cities. But nothing happened to fix the sub-prime mess, brewing for two years now, until Wall Street had a cash-flow problem.

The biggest problem seems to be that the government is now moving, not because they are inclined to make public policy for the good of the American people, but because their campaign donors have asked them to. You can see campaign finance’s fingers in the presidential race as well, as Wall Street donors dominate the upper echelons of each candidates’ major fundraisers and both candidates flounder and walk the thin line between offending their donors and offering real leadership.

As a seeming palliative to the financial crisis, the House introduced yesterday HR 7022, the Fair Elections Now Act, “To reform the financing of House elections, and for other purposes.” This bill would provide full optional public financing for congressional elections. It’s companion bill in the Senate has been mired in Congressional inaction. We can see how quickly Congress can act when it (more…)

Read Full Post »