Are the Dems really gonna get serious about the culture of corruption and winning elections? Maybe, sort of sounds like it, god I hope so. I've been ranting about the Dems missing the boat on this and not really being serious about cleaning up the system. Then out of the blue, viola.
"You can talk all you want about nibbling at the margins about ethics and House rules and all the rest, but unless we deal with the nexus between politics and money, damned little is actually going to change over time," Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin said in a telephone interview.
Obey said he and fellow Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts would offer legislation this month requiring that general elections for the 435 House seats be financed purely with public funds.
Of course, Republicans don't want it. David Sirota does a great job of explaining why.
They are clearly frightened of public financing. They have built their power by trading legislation for campaign cash from Big Money interests. And their reaction to the Obey-Frank proposal shows their fear.
And just to prove Sirota's point,
A senior House Republican aide dismissed Obey's approach saying, "This is exactly the wrong place to go." The aide noted that Republicans were pushing for "more transparency" in lobbying activities, such as their campaign contributions, and added, "What's wrong with people just choosing candidates to give money to?"
Sirota goes on to say,
The fact that the GOP apparently sees nothing wrong with a system that allows people like Jack Abramoff "choosing" to siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates in exchange for legislative favors shows just how out of touch and politically tone deaf that party has become. And that's one of the big political reasons why pushing public financing is so important for Democrats: because it makes the GOP defend the current corrupt system that polls show Americans want radically reformed.
The fact is, under our current process, campaigns are financed by a tiny minority of very wealthy interests - not by a large swath of the public giving small contributions. In exchange for those massive contributions, Big Money interests receive all sorts of rewards. That is what our current system is really all about - paying to play. And that is what public financing would prevent.
Obey knows its up hill, but its OK. If they win, we actually clean up politics. If not, they can blame the Republicans for being hooked on dirty money.
Obey noted recent reports that Americans did not want to pay for public financing of campaigns and did not want lobbyists contributing. "What that leaves is campaigns financed through immaculate conception and I don't think that's a reliable financing basis for campaigns," Obey said.
Is this some wacky, liberal idea? No, and it is being done, right now, in several states including Maine and Arizona. Sirota gives great links to and commentary on how main stream this is.
Make no mistake about it - public financing of elections is a very mainstream proposal. The conservative state of Arizona, for instance, passed a public financing system for state elections. So did the moderate state of Connecticut, after a corruption scandal ravaged the government there. And mainstream newspapers like USA Today have correctly endorsed the concept.
Let's be clear - a handful of House progressives have long been pushing for public financing of elections. For instance, Obey (who I used to work for on the Appropriations Committee) has been pushing public financing proposals for years. And Massachusetts Rep. John Tierney (D) has a terrific public financing bill already introduced in this Congress. For too long, these proposals have been ignored by the political Establishment and the media. But clearly now there is a good chance the bills will generate a lot more attention, and have a lot more juice behind them, thanks to the DeLay/Abramoff scandals. That is, if Democrats as a whole step up to the plate and get serious.
So if its so main stream and will get dirty money out of politics, what's the MFP? Sirota asks the critical question.
..will the Democratic Party establishment have the guts to take up this cause as its official position? Or, will it be content to offer nibble-at-the-edges proposals which do nothing to attack the real problem, and whose distinctions are easily blurred by the Republicans?
Well it appears the MFP is....
Right now, there are some powerful Democrats who may feel threatened by clean elections - Democrats like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who has risen to his current position by creating his own operation to rake in corporate campaign contributions. Public financing of elections would threaten that operation because it would (at least partially) divorce political power from the ability to shakedown Big Money interests for cash.
Polls show the public sees both political parties as equally corrupt; and I agree with Sirota that the
"...only way for Democrats to really put corruption on the front burner as campaign issue in 2006 is to offer bold proposals that clearly contrast with the GOP, and that would seriously change our pay-to-play system."
New Rules Updated: For every MFP, there has to be a solution. So,here is, the To Do list:
1. Join Public Campaign. There a whole group out there working to get this done.
- Get in touch with your Member of Congress today and tell them to co-sponsor the upcoming Obey-Frank legislation and co-sponsor the current Tierney legislation. While you are at this link, check it out. There is some good stuff on ways you can make a difference.
- If you disagree with public financing or just want to know more about it, visit Sirota's site. He has lots of links to additional information.