Difference between revisions of "Campaign Finance Reform"

From CA Greens wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pubic financing rephrasing)
(Public financing)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
Greens reject these ruling and support amending the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.  
 
Greens reject these ruling and support amending the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.  
 +
 +
- Elections by their nature are expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. and candidates and officeholders should be able to campaign and serve without the perception of corruption and conflict of interest that comes from over-dependence on contributions. But in the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.
 +
 +
Elections and campaigns do cost money, and it is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed.  The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.
 +
 +
Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. Combined with this, Greens support public financing where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations, increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections, and enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
  
 
- Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general.
 
- Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general.
Line 9: Line 15:
 
Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.
 
Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.
  
−
- Elections by their nature are expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. and candidates and officeholders should be able to campaign and serve without the perception of corruption and conflict of interest that comes from over-dependence on contributions. But in the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.
+
----
  
−
Elections and campaigns do cost money, and it is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed.  The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.
 
−
 
−
Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. Combined with this, Greens support public financing where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would the importance of small donations, the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections, and would enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
 
  
 
'''Proposals''': Greens support
 
'''Proposals''': Greens support
Line 23: Line 26:
 
Once these rulings are overturned, Greens support campaign spending limits combined with forms of public financing and other electoral reforms
 
Once these rulings are overturned, Greens support campaign spending limits combined with forms of public financing and other electoral reforms
  
−
- Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that free time be reserved on the public broadcast spectrum and be dedicated to candidates and political parties, as part of all  public broadcast spectrum licenses
 
  
 +
Public Financing
  
−
Public Financing
+
- Match small donations with public funds at a multiple ratio. Overturn current the current ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds.
  
−
- Match small donations with public funds at a multiple ratio. Overturn current the current ban in California that prevents public matching funds
+
- Combine voluntary spending limits with public financing opportunities
  
 
- Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions
 
- Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions
  
−
Remove the current ban
+
- Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that free time be reserved on the public broadcast spectrum and be dedicated to candidates and political parties, as part of all  public broadcast spectrum licenses
  
−
a provision of a 1988 initiative bans counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds.
+
Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms for filers to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice with donation that does not come out of their taxes and is optional
−
 
 
−
How can we provide local options to address campaign finance?
 
−
 
 
−
SB 1107 (Allen/Hancock) would remove the ban on voluntary public campaign financing programs. Because the ban was first enacted by ballot initiative, the bill would be referred for voters’ approval.
 
  
−
Creates the Freedom from Influence Fund to match contributions of up to $150 to participating candidates 6-to-1 or more;
+
- Create small donor committees that aggregate the voices of small donors
  
 
Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions;
 
Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions;
Line 46: Line 45:
 
Provides enhanced matching funds in the final 60 days of a general election for candidates in high-cost races (because of an onslaught of outside spending, for example); and
 
Provides enhanced matching funds in the final 60 days of a general election for candidates in high-cost races (because of an onslaught of outside spending, for example); and
  
−
Creates People PACs, or small donor committees, that aggregate the voices and power of ordinary citizens rather than wealthy donors (as traditional PACs tend to do).
+
Creates People PACs, or  
  
  
 +
The Act increases the impact of small donations by creating a fund that will match those donations at least 6-to-1 if a candidate agrees to forego large contributions.
  
  
−
- Enact public matching funds/small donors. 
 
−
Voters are increasingly concerned about political mega-donors in our elections, and many governments are considering new approaches to campaign financing. Unfortunately, one of the most promising reforms is currently prohibited in most California jurisdictions.
 
  
−
. These laws amplify the voices of everyday Californians who donate small amounts and give candidates an alternative to relying on large donors.
 
−
Government By the People Act encourages more people to participate by giving small donors a $25 credit on their taxes.
 
−
 
−
The Act increases the impact of small donations by creating a fund that will match those donations at least 6-to-1 if a candidate agrees to forego large contributions.
 
−
 
−
 
−
Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms for filers to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice with donation that does not come out of their taxes and is optional
 
  
 
- Free television time to all ballot-qualified candidates
 
- Free television time to all ballot-qualified candidates
Line 82: Line 73:
 
But other jurisdictions cannot enact such laws today. Unlike charter cities,  
 
But other jurisdictions cannot enact such laws today. Unlike charter cities,  
  
−
- Combine voluntary spending limits with public financing opportunities
 
  
−
to reduce money's corrupting influence on our political system.
 
  
−
 
+
http://www.yesfairelections.org/
−
Reform FEC law to provide free tv time for all presidential candidates on enough state ballots to
 
  
 
- Free TV
 
- Free TV
 
- Low cost or free candidtes statements available to all ballot qualiied candidates
 
- Low cost or free candidtes statements available to all ballot qualiied candidates
−
 
−
Provide a common bas
 
−
 
−
There is both the source of funding and the need for it.
 
−
 
−
Greens increase public financing.
 
−
 
−
Greens support constituationl amendment that do blank.
 
−
 
−
Until then within the durrent structure, support these things.
 
−
 
−
Also reduce the need via electoral fre
 
−
 
−
 
−
Public financing can take many forms but aims to accomplish two primary goals: 1)
 
−
 
−
On Federal level support contitutional reform.
 
−
 
−
Campaign contributors are simply responding to high incumbent re-election rates, more than causing them. Most big donors seek to buy influence, not elections. Minor parties lose elections not because of inequity in campaign contributions, they lose because they are a minority viewpoint within a majoritarian system. In a general election, the underlying partisan views of a district's voters are far more decisive than campaign spending. "Demography is destiny..."because gerrymandered districts creates such a large majority of a particular viewpoint.
 
−
 
−
Money plays a larger role in primary elections where voters are not choosing between parties, and candidates with more money can distinguish themselves from the pack. Thus, campaign finance reform can be more effective in primary elections, as well as in single-seat state-wide elections and municipal at-large elections. The California Clean Money  Campaign http://www.yesfairelections.org/ was formed in 2006 to redress the situation and to prevent undue influence of Big Money in California politics.
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
Amend the Constitution to the overturn of Citizens United v. FEC,  (2010) McCutcheon v. FEC  (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976)Our campaign seeks to overturn the Citizens United decision. We want to pass an amendment to our Constitution declaring that corporations are not people, money is not speech, and our elections are not for sale. To do so, we’re going state-by-state, city-by-city to build the support its going to take to win. We’ve already helped get 16 states and nearly 600 cities, counties and towns to formally tell Congress that the Constitution must be amended. Getting this across the finish line won’t be easy, but it’s what’s necessary to reclaim our democracy.
 
  
 
Disclosure
 
Disclosure

Revision as of 13:20, 30 May 2016

Background: Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. But too often, big money has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence in our elections, and undermines our democracy. The reasons are many:

- The U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections, though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).

Greens reject these ruling and support amending the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

- Elections by their nature are expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. and candidates and officeholders should be able to campaign and serve without the perception of corruption and conflict of interest that comes from over-dependence on contributions. But in the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.

Elections and campaigns do cost money, and it is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed. The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.

Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. Combined with this, Greens support public financing where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations, increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections, and enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.

- Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general.

Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.


Proposals: Greens support

Constitutional Reform

- Amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, (2010) McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976)

Once these rulings are overturned, Greens support campaign spending limits combined with forms of public financing and other electoral reforms


Public Financing

- Match small donations with public funds at a multiple ratio. Overturn current the current ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds.

- Combine voluntary spending limits with public financing opportunities

- Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions

- Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that free time be reserved on the public broadcast spectrum and be dedicated to candidates and political parties, as part of all public broadcast spectrum licenses

Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms for filers to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice with donation that does not come out of their taxes and is optional

- Create small donor committees that aggregate the voices of small donors

Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions;

Provides enhanced matching funds in the final 60 days of a general election for candidates in high-cost races (because of an onslaught of outside spending, for example); and

Creates People PACs, or


The Act increases the impact of small donations by creating a fund that will match those donations at least 6-to-1 if a candidate agrees to forego large contributions.



- Free television time to all ballot-qualified candidates

- Free television time to all ballot-qualified parties


To promote a more informed electorate and to decrease the role of money in politics, I've successfully promoted an substantial increase in coverage on CityTV of ballot qualified candidates since the mid 1990s. Candidate statements, interviews and forums are broadcast for a month before the election on CityTV, valued at $12,000 to $15,000 worth of coverage per candidate. Six charter cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Richmond) offer limited public funds to match small campaign donations


Financing of Elections

Public financing of elections and free media access to level the playing field for getting candidates' messages to voters.

Removing the Ban


offering public mathching funds and create some system in cities

But other jurisdictions cannot enact such laws today. Unlike charter cities,


http://www.yesfairelections.org/

- Free TV - Low cost or free candidtes statements available to all ballot qualiied candidates

Disclosure


http://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment 

   • AB 700 (Gomez-Levine), California DISCLOSE Act:  Make political ads show who REALLY pays for them!  Sign petition!
   • SB 1107 (Allen):  Start on the road to public financing of campaigns!  Sign SB 1107 petition!
   • SB 254 (Allen-Leno), Overturn Citizens United Act:  Let us vote to urge a constitutional amendment!  Sign SB 254 petition!
   • AB 1200 (Gordon):  Report lobbying on billions in state contracts!  Sign AB 1200 petition!
   • AB 1828 (Dodd):  Close conflict of interest loopholes at the powerful Board of Equalization!  Sign AB 1828 petition!
   • AB 2523 (Mullin):  Require cities and counties to have campaign contribution limits!
   • SB 976 (Vidak):  Stop legislators from taking rich lobbying jobs after quitting early!  Sign SB 976 petition!
   • SB 1349 (Hertzberg):  Increase transparency with a new Cal-Access campaign disclosure website!

incentives and matching funds for small contributions — systems that are already in place in some cities and counties.

Support constitutio

reverse decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon; let's rein in runaway political spending and protect everyone's right to be heard. Break the power of big money with small donor contributions and public funds. Implement the "People's Pledge" to keep shadowy front groups and their secret donors out of our elections.

Toughen disclosure laws; let voters know who's trying to buy elections.

Expose corporate power in government. Give shareholders control of corporate political spending.


After the Supreme Court removed barriers to corporate political spending in the 2010 Citizens United case, members of Congress introduced the DISCLOSE Act to help citizens keep track of who is spending money to influence our votes and elected officials. While donations made directly to candidates and parties generally are reported already, some "independent" groups are pumping millions of dollars from secret donors into TV ads supporting some candidates and opposing others. DISCLOSE would require reporting of contributions exceeding $10,000 to those groups and would apply equally to corporate and labor union spending.

DISCLOSE passed the House in 2010 but was stalled by a filibuster in the Senate, where it received 59 votes, a substantial majority but one vote short of the 60 needed to secure passage.

AMPLIFYING THE VOICES OF SMALL DONORS

Retrieved from "http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php?title=Campaign_Finance_Reform&oldid=3605"