Difference between revisions of "Campaign Finance Reform"

From CA Greens wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(PEG)
m (displaced words)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Campaign_Finance_Reform
 +
 
Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately big money in politics has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this are many:
 
Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately big money in politics has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this are many:
  
−
'''-''' Though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), 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), 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,
  
−
Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending.
+
Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending.
  
−
'''-''' Elections are expensive, by their nature, in order to reach large numbers of voters. In the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.  
+
- By their nature, elections and campaigns expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. 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.
+
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.
+
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 candidates running.
  
−
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 and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
+
Combined with this, Greens support public financing of campaigns and elections via a system where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also 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 17: Line 19:
 
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.
  
−
----
+
'''Proposals: The Green Party supports'''
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
'''Proposals''': Greens support
 
  
 
'''Contribution and Spending Limits'''
 
'''Contribution and Spending Limits'''
  
−
- Amend the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).
+
- Amend the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).
  
 
- Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing.
 
- Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing.
Line 30: Line 29:
 
'''Public Financing'''
 
'''Public Financing'''
  
−
- Establish matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio.  
+
- Establish various forms of public financing, including matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at greater than one-to-one multiple ratio.
  
 
- Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures.
 
- Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures.
−
 
−
- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits.
 
−
 
−
- Overturn the current ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds (from Proposition 73 in 1988) .
 
  
 
- Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates.
 
- Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates.
Line 46: Line 41:
 
- Require that time on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels be dedicated to candidates, debates and forums for elections within the PEG area
 
- Require that time on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels be dedicated to candidates, debates and forums for elections within the PEG area
  
−
'''Disclosure'''
+
- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits.
  
−
- Expand disclosure to independent expenditure, ooppose dark money
+
- Overturn the ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds (from Proposition 73 in 1988)
  
−
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.
+
- Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice (donation does not come out of their taxes, but is separate and additional)
  
−
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.
+
'''Disclosure'''
−
 
 
−
http://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment
 
  
−
    • AB 700 (Gomez-Levine), California DISCLOSE Act:  Make political ads show who REALLY pays for them!  Sign petition!
+
- Require prompt and full disclosure of all permissible contributions on Federal, State, and local government levels
−
    • 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!
 
  
−
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 can go an important way in addressing this.
+
- Eliminate all 'dark money' in elections - i.e. legal donations that are not publicly disclosed, including by amending Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purposes, to un-equivocably define that such organization must operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and that no Federal agency, including the IRS, may interpret this to mean otherwise, including by redefining 'exclusively' as 'primarily', and that any such past interpretations be rendered invalid and void" going forward.

Latest revision as of 10:16, 16 June 2016

http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Campaign_Finance_Reform

Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately big money in politics has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this are many:

- Though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), 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,

Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending.

- By their nature, elections and campaigns expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. In the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.

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 candidates running.

Combined with this, Greens support public financing of campaigns and elections via a system where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also 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: The Green Party supports

Contribution and Spending Limits

- Amend the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).

- Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing.

Public Financing

- Establish various forms of public financing, including matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at greater than one-to-one multiple ratio.

- Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures.

- Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates.

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

- Require that free television and radio time be dedicated to candidates, elections debates and forums ,and political parties as part of all commercial public broadcast licenses.

- Require that time on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels be dedicated to candidates, debates and forums for elections within the PEG area

- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits.

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

- Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice (donation does not come out of their taxes, but is separate and additional)

Disclosure

- Require prompt and full disclosure of all permissible contributions on Federal, State, and local government levels

- Eliminate all 'dark money' in elections - i.e. legal donations that are not publicly disclosed, including by amending Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purposes, to un-equivocably define that such organization must operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and that no Federal agency, including the IRS, may interpret this to mean otherwise, including by redefining 'exclusively' as 'primarily', and that any such past interpretations be rendered invalid and void" going forward.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php?title=Campaign_Finance_Reform&oldid=3637"