Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Not bad for six months

Way, way back in the spring of 2006, a mere 40 members of Congress publicly supported Clean Elections. Now that the elections are over, just a half-year later, that number has climbed to 108.

What's especially exciting is that 20 new members of the House signed the Voters First Pledge during this campaign season--along with 69 incumbent House members who won reelection--meaning that the incoming class of House freshmen brings substantial support for full public funding of Congressional elections. Those folks are joined by the other 13 House members who already supported a Clean Elections bill in the House, plus six Senators.

That's a lot of supporters, up 170% from earlier this year. An idea that once seemed like a pipe dream is now one step closer to becoming the way we run elections for Congress in this country.

Picture this: Congressional candidates in 2010 turning down special interest dollars, receiving public funding from the U.S. government, and then spending every day until Election Day just talking to voters all day long.

It sounds great, but we'll have to fight to make it happen.


Tags: clean elections, voters first, public financing, reform (all tags)


Display:

It Sounds Great

Skepticism is severely missing here.

The proposed legislation proclaims to impact the legislators the most, binding their hands from fundraising activities which favor an incumbent.  

Question:  Why would a rational legislator be in favor?  

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Susan Clark Muntean UCSD Political Science

by susancm on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 05:43:40 PM EST


'Serve the people' or 'stay in power'

It's easy to assume that every legislator only wants to keep his/her seat and remain in power. And, indeed, I think too many of our elected officials fit that description--I just blogged about that earlier today.

But many of them have already come out publicly in support of full public funding of elections. And indeed, it does help challengers who can't raise money like incumbents. Why would they do this?

Because they remember spending the majority of their campaign time talking to funders and big contributors, not to voters.

Because they don't like knowing that they've got to do a few favors for well-heeled lobbyists and their special interest groups, or else severely hurt their own chances at reelection.

Because enough of them still believe that public office is about serving the people and not just staying there as long as possible.

Could I be wrong? Perhaps. I haven't spoken to all of them. But I think this issue is about optimism for our political process and how it could work better. We need to limit the influence of big special interest money, which can force the hands of the legislators. It's not about rationality--plenty of rational lawmakers have supported, passed, and run for office under public financing in states like Maine, Arizona and Connecticut, and we should do the same in Congress.

by Josh Zaharoff on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 03:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy