Difference between revisions of "Campaign Finance Reform"

Revision as of 13:31, 30 May 2016

Background: Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately too often, big money has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence in our elections, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this 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. 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. This would provide all voters with a baseline of information about all the candidates before them.

Combined with this, Greens support public financing via a system 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.

Furthermore 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. Public financing of elections can go an important way in addressing this.

- 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

- Providing public financing programs that match small donations with public funds at a multiple ratio.

- Overturn current the current ban on this in California (from Proposition 73 in 1988) that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds.

- 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 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

- Free television time to all ballot-qualified candidates ombine voluntary spending limits with public financing opportunities

Removing the Ban

http://www.yesfairelections.org/

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