If the old adage is true, then when one door closes, another opens. That's my hope, and that's the essence of what USA Today argued for, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow sham issue ads in the days preceding an election. If we can't restrict big money flowing into political campaigns, then as their headline reads, "Give candidates option of public financing for races."
The ruling points the way to a solution, one that, happily, seems to be gaining political traction: public financing of campaigns. Seven states now give candidates for some state offices the option of rejecting private donations and accepting a fixed amount of public money. If candidates choose private donations, the amounts are publicly reported and exposed to voter scrutiny and debate.
This system has the beauty of promoting more speech, not less, and of offering voters candidates who are unfettered by private donations. The availability of public money also encourages newcomers to enter races, broadening the field beyond party regulars.
Best of all, this method has withstood court challenges, and it works.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case last week reopens the possibility--and, let's be honest, the near certainty--that wealthy special interests will pour unlimited resources into phony "issue ads" that seek to influence upcoming elections but don't explicitly state "vote for" or "vote against" a candidate.
It's a shameful and disappointing decision.
But if it increases the role of big money in campaigns--which has already turned off much of the public, and even many lawmakers--it makes "Clean Elections" even more attractive. As USA Today puts it,
Choice works: Let politicians choose how to finance campaigns. Let voters choose whether money from the public or from special interests provides cleaner government.
Yes, please give us that choice. We
already know the answer.
Here we go again. In three days, the presidential candidates report how much campaign cash they've raised over the past three months--and that, in turn, tells us voters who has a chance to become president and who doesn't have a prayer.
(Obama and Clinton still in the lead for Democrats! Romney just wrote himself a check for several million! Romney and Giuliani are ahead of McCain! Richardson might overtake Edwards! So, from all of that... can you figure out who will be the best president?)
That's how our system works. It's a money chase, because fundraising is the first measure of a presidential contender--and fundraising comes down to wealthy donors, not average voters. (In the first quarter of this year, 79% of the money raised in the presidential race came from donors who gave $1000 or more. That's not your average voter, not even close. But we don't matter yet.)
The skyrocketing cost of campaigns isn't limited to the presidential race; it's happening across the board. So we're asking folks to join Common Cause in calling for the presidential contenders to commit to support "Clean Elections" reforms once they're in office and help to stop the money chase.
The contenders are raising lots of money--and they have to, if they want a chance to win. We need a system that doesn't require them to spend all their time and energy fundraising from wealthy donors, and we need them to commit to support that system--in the form of bills like the Fair Elections Now Act--if they're elected president.
Go to our action center and let them know that you want their commitment to stop the money chase. They need to hear it now.
Common Blog
