States roundup
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:53:19 PM EST
It's been awhile since an update, so there's more Common Cause news than can fit here. But as state legislatures reopen for the 2008 session, and as the country follows a much-anticipated and closely-fought presidential race, here's a sampling of some highlights from our work making our democracy function more like it should....
Breaking: staff person of anti-clean elections group calls clean elections a "waste"
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:36:38 AM EST
The consensus is that the New Jersey clean elections pilot program was a success that needs to be expanded to include primaries and cover all statewide races. The New Jersey media have generally done a good job, in news coverage and editorials, to drive that point home.
So it's disappointing to read a headline such as, ""Opinions divided on 'clean elections': Some, but not all, call experiment a success." Scan down the article and you'll find that the first (of just two) people who criticized the program is Mike Schrimpf, who works for the anti-clean elections group Center for Competitive Politics, a group that expressly advocates against all campaign finance regulation and was founded by Brad Smith, the avowedly anti-reform former FEC commissioner.
The article quotes various sources--university institutes, Democratic and Republican candidates alike--highlighting support for the program and praise for the improved voter experience it wrought. That's worth covering. But Schrimpf calling it a "waste" and providing no evidence for his claim does not merit the suggestion that there's a great divide over whether the New Jersey clean elections pilot worked.
Post-election, support deepens for NJ Clean Elections
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:29:12 AM EST
Another New Jersey paper editorializes in favor of expanding the "Clean Elections" public financing system statewide: If lawmakers need proof that clean elections should be held in every district, they ought to consider the numbers from the Nov. 6 elections.
Statewide turnout was a dismal 32 percent. But Democratic and Republican candidates broke state fundraising records, pulling in $82.45 million for the general election and the primary. They spent $68.8 million of that money.
...
Most of those record sums came from the same special-interest groups that continue to help decide, with their money, who will speak for New Jerseyans and for them. The editorial goes into more depth on the need for clean elections, which I'll post below the fold.
As discussed earlier, recent polling highlighted the improved experience for voters in Clean Elections districts versus those in private financing districts. All signs from inside and outside the New Jersey legislature point to expanding the program, which seems increasingly like a no-brainer.
New Jersey post-pilot project polling proves potential for public financing
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:28:13 PM EST
P-p-p-power to the people of New Jersey!
The state implemented a pilot Clean Elections program for three state senate districts this year. The program already saw remarkably high participation and the Assembly Speaker promised to expand it next year; now, polling after the fact shows that voters had a much better experience in races where candidates ran using public funding. Voters in three legislative districts where a taxpayer-financed "clean elections" program was tried this year were more likely than other voters around the state to say their races focused on the issues, a new study of polling data shows. More details on the findings below the fold.
Public Financing Growth Hormone (PFGH)
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:21:44 AM EST
It appears that the state of New Jersey ingested an unknown quantity of Public Financing Growth Hormone, a biochemical relative of the Human Growth Hormone (HGH) best known for causing Barry Bonds' head to swell and helping Floyd Landis win the Tour de France. Luckily, unlike HGH, PFGH has a highly beneficial effect for society: expanding the number of candidates running for elected office using public funds, rather than relying on networks of wealthy private donors to fund their campaign.
The Clean Elections concept has taken hold among voters in New Jersey, where at least 16 of 20 legislative candidates have qualified for a share of $7.6 million in public campaign-finance money, authorities said Monday. Clean Elections was designed to reduce special interests' influence on New Jersey politics. Donors who give generously often later are awarded no-bid government contracts, a practice known as pay-to-play. Good-government advocates say that pay-to-play costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
To sign on, candidates had to agree to collect at least $4,000 in individual $10 donations, then swear off private funding and any kind of help from their county committees. They then would be eligible for at least $50,000 in grants, plus installments based on total donations and the degree of competition within the district. Here's the best part: New Jersey may take another injection of PFGH soon, a real win for the voters and citizens of New Jersey: On Monday, [Assembly Speaker Joe] Roberts said the Legislature would expand the program in 2009, to include primary races and more legislative districts. The expansion of the program will be critical for its long term success. These are positive signs from the Garden State. Pilot project critics getting called out
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 03:17:59 PM EST
New Jersey passed a pilot project to enact voluntary, full public funding of campaigns in three state Senate districts, and those candidates have already begun raising small contributions and successfully qualifying for public funding. The Times of Trenton rightly calls out naysayers in a recent editorial:
Critics are claiming that public funding of the campaigns in these districts is a waste of taxpayer money, favors the incumbents (that's one that doesn't add up) and the districts chosen don't have competitive races. It appears that, before the campaigns heat up in the 37th, 24th, and our own 14th legislative districts, the naysayers are mounting an effort to kill Clean Elections once and for all.
They couldn't be more wrong. If anything, the Clean Elections project should be expanded to more districts in the future. And if reform-minded lawmakers sincerely want to get at the problems of influence-peddling and big-spending private contributors, Clean Elections should be extended to the primaries -- that's where the real work of leveling the political playing field needs to take place. They're right that the program should be expanded, and especially that it should include primary race funding as well as general. But they're also on the mark about the critics, who have little evidence to challenge the system and represent a small minority of the public.
The paper goes on to highlight the way that Clean Elections-style programs improve on the typical campaign model:
NJ candidates make the cut for public funding
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:48:31 AM EST
Congratulations to Seema Singh, the first state Senate candidate in New Jersey to qualify for public funding to run her campaign this cycle. Singh, a Democrat, got her 400th $10 contribution on Wednesday, qualifying her for $46,000 in public funds. But The Times of Trenton reports that her opponent is close behind:
While Singh is the first candidate to reach 400, she will not be the last. Her opponent, Republican Assemblyman Bill Baroni, is just 10 donations shy of 400 and said he and running mates Tom Goodwin and Adam Bushman expect to reach the level next week. Residents of New Jersey's 14th district are in an envious position: they'll be choosing between (at least) two candidates whose campaigns were not paid for by an exclusive list of wealthy donors or special interest groups, and who will be able to devote their time during the campaign to voter outreach and small donor fundraising.
That's a choice everyone should have.
New Jersey: launching public financing
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 05:18:42 PM EST
When a state--in this case New Jersey--passes a pilot program for "Clean Elections," it's important that candidates learn how the program works and that the public understand how it will be different from past campaigns.
Thus far, after New Jersey passed a pilot Clean Elections-style public financing system for three state legislative races, the news media like the Newark Star-Ledger are doing a good job of educating the public about it.
After raising an initial $10,000 in seed money, candidates who sign up for the "clean elections" program being run in three of the state's 40 legislative districts will ask donors to give just $10 apiece.
Once they've found 800 voters willing to kick in 10 bucks, they will qualify for enough taxpayer money to run a full-scale campaign.
New Jersey has had its share of pay-to-play political scandals and voters' mistrust. Passing a pilot Clean Elections program will hopefully lead to subsequent passage of a full public financing program like in Maine, Arizona, or Connecticut.
But to make this work, it will take understanding on the part of voters, candidates, and the media--so it's good that the media has done their job so far.
|
Common Blog
