Akron Beacon Journal's Dennis Willard, last Sunday, referred to Ohio's campaign reform efforts as resembling the mythological figure Sisyphus who was condemned to an eternity of doing the meaningless task of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again.

This imagery could stem from Ohio Election Commission Chairman Martin Parks' comment to William Todd, the lawyer representing the defendant in the latest campaign finance challenge before the commission, that his organization faces an "uphill climb."

Californians have a second chance of seeing public financing of state elections becoming a reality in the November election.

Prop 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, creates a voluntary system of public financing and limits political contributions to candidates and ballot measures. It will ensure that people with true grassroots support will be able to mount credible campaigns without having to rely on wealthy special interests to bankroll - and buy - their political platforms.

State public financing has already proven to be successful in both Maine and Arizona and we are working hard to add California to that list. Check out our Prop 89 webpage for more information.

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles city council took a step closer to adopting full-public financing for municipal campaigns. Although five of the council members expressed the usual concerns about tax-dollars for campaigns, the full 15-member council voted unanimously to draft a measure that could be placed on the March ballot. Check out the LA Times story.

Reflecting the unimpeachable tidiness of the current members, the city council also voted to change the name from Clean Money to "full-public financing". I still think "voter-owned elections" best captures the intent and philosophy of public-finance.

A successful drive for public-finance in the second most populous city in the nation would obviously be a huge boon for the movement.

Tuesday, June 27th, is the long-awaited National Clean Money Day - an opportunity to reflect on the frequently malevolent role that money and special interests play in our hijacked political system.  To celebrate, a coalition of groups, including Common Cause, will host hundreds of house parties across the United States.  Parties will feature a screening of the new film "The Big Buy: Tom Delay's Stolen Congress," a documentary that investigates corporate power, dirty money, and corruption during the tenure of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay.  Delay's close political ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff are also explored by this film.

After the screening, the house parties will be linked by a conference call with Common Cause President Chellie Pingree, radio commentator and public speaker Jim Hightower, film director Robert Greenwald, and other reform leaders.  The conference call will present a plan to curtail the prevalence of dirty money and corruption through Clean Money reforms at the federal level.

Go here to register for a party in your area.  House parties are great way to discuss and find solutions to pressing political issues with similarly engaged members of your community.  Please consider attending a party on Tuesday, and afterwards use the Comments section to let us know how your party went.

June 27th is now officially Clean Money Day! CC is working with a coalition of groups to host house parties across the country on June 27th. Can you host one? Go here to sign up.

The house parties will feature a new film by Brave New Films called "The Big Buy: Tom Delay's Stolen Congress" and will be linked by a national conference call with CC President Chellie Pingree and other reform leaders. More after the jump...

Californians overwhelmingly feel that their Capitol is run by special interests. However, given the tenor of last week's committee hearing on the California Clean Money Bill, modeled on the Arizona and Maine public-finance laws, it seems that Californians will have to get used to it.

Opponents of the Clean Money (AB 583) bill found various details to attach their criticism to at the April 19 Senate Elections Committee hearing. Several senators spent a great deal of time predicting how the system would be gamed by politicians, in spite of contrary testimony that such hypothetical situations simply had not occurred in states where Clean Money has already been adopted. While acknowledging the valid problem of privately-funded independent expenditures in a publicly-financed campaign, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that these senators simply don't support reforming the current system that emphasizes wealthy contributors at the expense of the vast majority of Californians who feel that their voices are not heard in the Capitol.

The bill still needs to be voted on by that committee. But, after the hearing, it seems only great pressure from leadership will force these reluctant senators to see the light. Senate President Don Perata has been telling the hundreds of California Common Cause members who have been calling his and other senators' offices that he supports the bill. If he truly does, hopefully he can help these two termed-out Democrats on the committee get out of the way.

Consider this:


Low approval ratings, but record fundraising. Hmmmm. What does this tell us generally about campaign financing in our country? (hint: think small group of big donors)

Now consider this:

In early April, the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 1316, sponsored by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN). H.R.1316 repeals the limit on the total amount that an individual can contribute to all federal candidates and to political parties in a two-year election cycle. It would:

Allow a single individual to contribute an overall total of more than $4,000,000 to members of Congress and their political parties to influence federal elections in a two-year election cycle.

Allow a President, Senator or Representative to solicit a total of almost $3,000,000 from a single individual for the officeholder's party and the party's federal candidates in a two-year election cycle.

Allow a member of Congress to solicit more than $1,000,000 from a single individual to be spent by the Member and the Member's party to directly support the Member's election in a two-year election cycle.

The hordes of Americans clamoring to contribute $4 million to political campaigns every two years will now be satisfied. Who needs approval ratings?

Rachel Leon, director of Common Cause New York, yesterday wrote an op-ed in the NY Times describing the findings of a new report on campaign spending in the state and telling New York State to "follow the lead" of Connecticut and New York City and adopt public financing of campaigns, citing the high cost of running for public office in the state:
Here's more of Rachel's piece: