Electoral and Campaign Finance Reform

Background: Democracy refers as much to a lively political culture as to a system of government. A diverse society needs a pluralistic structure to allow the widest possible range of views to heard. To truly enfranchise citizens, everyone must have the right and ability to their say. California suffers from a 'democratic deficit', because our electoral system is structurally incapable of representing our diversity. Something more inclusive needs to take its place.

Greens support a system where all voters can cast a vote towards actually electing someone who represents their views, and where as many parties have a real chance at winning seats, as represent the full electorate. How can we get there?

Voter turnout - In a healthy democracy, high voter turnout results from the ability of voters to cast votes to elect candidates who reflect their views. By contrast, the United States has one of the lowest voter turnouts among established democracies.

The U.S. single-seat, winner-take-all electoral system greatly limits voter choice and representation and hence is a disincentive to vote -- especially when combined with campaign finance laws that give disproportionate influence to big money. Many that go to the polls are left to vote for what they are against -- the 'lesser-of-two-evils' -- because there is no candidate truly representing their views; or if there is, none they believe has a chance of being elected.

California's failed experiment with top two elections has only made this worse. Top two limits voters to only two choices in the November general election and makes it more difficult for candidates to get on the ballot in the primary. This has led to decreased general election turnout, and the two lowest primary election turnouts in state history.

Voter registration - When few eligible voters participate, the legitimacy and representative nature of the elections is also greatly diminished. In California, approximately only 2/3 of eligible California voters (as of 2016 are registered ), and then only a comparatively-low percentage of those registered actually vote. An increase in the total number and percentage of registered voters can expand the foundation of our democracy. Combined with giving those registered more reason to vote -- and making it easier for them to cast their votes -- can expand the representative level of our elections.

Redistricting - Much debate focuses upon who should draw districts lines, and how to make district elections competitive. But competitive districts don't mean representative elections. Equally important is 'how many representatives are elected per district' and 'how many representatives are elected overall'.

California has the lowest per-capita state representation in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_U.S._state_governments. The number of seats in the California state legislature was set in 1879 when California's population was approximately 865,000 (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/historical_census_1850-2010/documents/2010-1850_STCO_IncCities-FINAL.xls). As of 2016, it is over 39 million (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2016PressRelease.pdf)-- yet the number of seats has never been increased.

At the same time, single-seat, winner-take-all district elections are not capable of representing the diversity of California voters. Incorporating multi-seat districts with proportional representation would ensure that more voices are heard. Combined with more seats and smaller districts, this could promote the broadest representation.

Additionally, the effects of redistricting and partisan / incumbent gerrymandering produce insidious distortions of 'democracy'. A study by the non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy showed that redistricting turned 80% of congressional districts into non-competitive, one-party bastions where voters had little choice but to ratify the candidate of the major party that controlled that district. The situation has been made much worse with Top Two that disenfranchises all third parties and can even exclude major party candidates for the runoff election. In effect, politicians are choosing the runoff voters.

Campaign finance reform - The role of big money Both reducing the need for money and changing its source.

Making matters worse. On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. In a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC, (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), 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.

On Federal level support contitutional reform. This reality also impacts campaign finance reform. The size of districts affects the cost of running in them, and winner-take-all elections means have to get people who don't support you. A move to prop rep can is one of the most effective forms of campaign finance reform, because don't need a majority to win any representation. Instead different parts of society can win repreeatnion in proportion to their numbers.

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.

Term Limits - term limits are necessiated by winner-take all systems. Making incumbents , combined with distircts that by geograhy will produce a poitn o view. Districting can actually water down represtnaitn , when all views.

Amendment of the California Voting Rights Act to include ranked choice voting as an equal option to districts

By lowering the age, making it automatic with opt-out.

Hence the base for our democracy is narrow.

, other way

those registered more

by implemting electoral reforms that their vote will count towareds electing someone, also increase total registeration,

Can't change date of federal elections. Either make setate holiday or weekend voting for primary.

and make it easier to vote.

Proposals: The Green Party proposes:

Electoral Reform

— State Legislature a system of multi-seat districts with proportional representation for legislative elections, and ranked choice voting for single-seat executive office. 

- Statewide Office

1.  Replace the current system of with more seats including possiblity of a unicameral o

Abolish the Top Two system that perpetuates the major party hegemony and replace it with proportional representation (See

a system of multi-seat districts with proportional representation for legislative elections,

Tehre can be value in geogrpahic represetnation, if part oa systme tha tmixes districts and But if distircts, number should be incresed, to amek smaller and hence cost les. Any districts should be elected by ranked choice voting, to give fullest voice the voters.

2.  Lower the signature and fee requirements to get on the ballot in the primaries. 

3.  Restore write-in voting in General Elections

Financing of Elections

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

5.  Reject the notion that money in political campaigns is free speech, as interpreted by the Supreme Court decision in Buckley vs. Vallejo, and by the U.S. Supreme Court by its  support of no caps on political 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

9. Combine voluntary campaign spending limits and public campaign funding to reduce money's corrupting influence on our political system.

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.

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!

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.

In the meantime, we're working to amplify the voices of ordinary people in our elections. So we're also working to create systems of incentives and matching funds for small contributions — systems that are already in place in some cities and counties.

Amend the Constitution to 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

We’re building support for the Government By the People Act, a bill in Congress which will help bring more small donors into our elections, and increase their impact. Here’s how:

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.

Electoral Reform

6.  Hold elections on non-working days. Saturdays and Sundays are the worldwide day of choice. Holidays, such as Veterans Day, should also be considered.  

Redistricting

Public debates general

7.  Take the redistricting process away from politicians and place it under the control of elected citizen boards that represent the various partisan, civic and minority constituencies. Criteria for drawing the boundaries should be developed to make all legislative districts as competitive as possible.  

Supports more districts, better per capita, and a change with further census to keep ratio. Multi-seat districts. Where a combination.

Voter Registration

Lower the voter registration age to 16 and the voting age to either 16 or 17

8.  Run candidates reflecting the diversity of the larger culture.  The Green party will strive to do this.

10. Allow eligible candidates to pay postage rates one quarter of the regular rate, as well as free access to the airwaves.

11. Establish contribution limits for Political Action Committees (PACs) with less than 50 members to prevent wealthy people from using their funds to unduly influence elections.

12. Prohibit political parties from using "soft money" - transfers from other campaigns or party coffers - to pay for any election-related activities.

13. State on political advertisements the sources of campaign funds in excess of $100.

14. Oppose the resignation of a legislator to become a lobbyist on the basis of conflict of interest

Other electoral reforms deserving our support in varying degrees are:

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

IRV is an important reform for single-seat races such as mayor, governor, Congress and state legislatures. IRV allows voters to rank their choices first, second, third, etc., and operates like a series of runoff elections. If a voter's first choice doesn't win, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. IRV allows voters to vote their conscience without "wasting" their vote on a candidate not likely to win, or being forced in to choosing between the "lesser of two evils."

None of the Above (NOTA)

NOTA can be effective in party primaries. If none of the candidates seeking the party's nomination are satisfactory, party members can vote NOTA. If NOTA wins, no candidate advances to the general election. In a general election NOTA can have mixed results. NOTA would allow voters to express their dissatisfaction with all available candidates. However, a vote for NOTA takes away the "protest votes" that would otherwise go to minor party candidates. This perpetuates the two-party monopoly by increasing their share of the total candidate-votes, further reducing the share received by minor party candidates. Also, NOTA could force a second, expensive election where the party with the most money would likely prevail.

Fusion

Under fusion, one party can endorse another party's candidate. That candidate then appears on the ballot of all parties endorsing her or him. In winner-take-all systems, fusion can help smaller parties by allowing them to unite around a single candidate and combine their strength. However, a minor party could lose its independence by fusing with a major party candidate, thus failing to provide an alternative to the major parties.