Common Cause continues its efforts to hold power accountable.

Abuse of Power: Forging the Path to Recovery

Common Cause hosted a distinguished panel on June 10 to discuss the widespread abuse of power engaged in by the current Administration. The Administration has disregarded the rule of law through over-broad assertions of executive power, abuse of signing statements, and policies that arguably flout the Constitution regarding interrogation, detention, and intelligence gathering. The Congress has repeatedly failed to perform its constitutionally mandated oversight duties in each of these areas.

The panelists were charged with examining these disturbing trends and with considering how best to restore the constitutional constraints that have served our country well since its inception.

With Barack Obama's decision to restrict both his campaign and the DNC from taking PAC's and lobbyists' contributions, he's indicated a willingness to change the campaign fundraising dynamic.  That's an exciting step for someone on such a large stage as the presidential election -- and we can only hope that it portends a strong commitment to continuing to reform the system if he's elected.

But it's complicating affairs for other Democrats who feel they need to continue taking contributions from any source in order to afford to run a modern-day congressional campaign (h/t OpenLeft):

The presidential public financing system is broken and needs to updated and expanded.  We have no congressional public financing system, while a strong proposal--the Fair Elections Now Act--sits in Congress and could move, especially if the next President is supportive.

With all the furor over who's taking public financing in the primary and general elections of 2008, the bigger question for our democracy and the sanity of our campaign finance system is: What will any of these candidates do to reform the system if they are elected?

Common Cause, with our allies Public Campaign and Public Citizen, addressed that question today in this memo, "Presidential Candidates and Public Financing of Elections."

The latest presidential campaign skirmish over the public financing system misses a couple of key points and has involved a narrow focus and a fair amount of candidate bashing.  Let's take a look at the facts.

Obama made a commitment to use public funds in the general election if he wins the nomination and if his Republican opponent made the same commitment.  His words seemed clear, but now his campaign spokesman appears to be backtracking from that statement.

McCain made a similar commitment.  He said he would use public funds in the primary, but he changed course - even using a bank loan with the promise of future public funds as collateral - and has now skipped public financing in the primary.

It appears that both candidates had a change of heart.

We would like to see both general election candidates - whomever they are - use public financing because it reduces the influence of large special interest donors.  But the system is out of date and in need of a fix, too.  As we've said for some time now, it's just as important - if not more so - that the next President make it a priority to update and expand the public financing system.

Here's what we know about their stances and history.

This morning, columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post vigorously endorses publicly funded elections and calls on the presidential candidates to make it happen.

His main point is that identifying the problem and voicing a need for "change" will not, by itself, solve the problem.  A further implication here is that the "change Washington" message works so well right now because voters desire a real, fundamental change in the way our politics work--but that achieving that change will take tangible solutions and vision, not just a good message.

But Cohen's logic is right, he places the blame on the system and not the candidates trying to work within it, and he highlights that it's only getting worse without enacting public financing.  It goes without saying that it's especially significant to have Cohen, a columnist who positions himself as middle-of-the-road and holds court in one of the major newspapers in the country, choosing this overheated primary season to be a moment to make a stand for major campaign reform.  Bravo.

Happy New Year +1!

The first contest of the presidential election season, the Iowa caucuses, is 24 hours away.  If you're like me--ruggedly handsome, mildly caffeinated, closely following the presidential race--then you probably want to know whether these candidates will work to restore our democracy by getting big money out of politics, right?

You're in luck.  We've compiled their stances, including a few audio clips, so you can see where each one stands on congressional public financing as embodied in the Fair Elections Now Act.

If you're not in Iowa... it's okay, go ahead, you can look, too.  It's an important issue and we're fortunate to have a number of contenders who strongly favor public financing.

One related note: Two weeks ago, as I was off on vacation, former Congressman Berk Bedell wrote a stirring op-ed in the Des Moines Register highlighting our effort:

Twenty four hours until the Iowa caucuses.  Congress comes back into session in a few more days.  And money pours into the political race at a pace never before seen.  I expect we'll look back at this as a key moment in the effort to win public financing for the U.S. Congress and to change how we finance elections across the country.