Californians Want Clean and Fair Elections

Worth mentioning how it's funded... (0.00 / 0)

...by increasing the registration costs that lobbyists are responsible for. From the shockingly measly to a more than affordable. What you get is a "revenue-neutral" pathway to publicly-financed elections.

The Secretary of State, it should also be mentioned, has inherent jurisdiction over these entities, so this is not only a revenue-neutral solution but also one organic to the constitutional role that the officer is responsible for, etc.

My point is: let's make our fight (after this fight) funding Insurance Commissioner and BoE races the same way. Levy a minimal fee, puts those funds into a designated fund for electing those offices, etc.

---

by: SPD @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 19:11:02 PM UTC

Looks like Dems get what they want. (0.00 / 0)

They have the ability to say that they are on the side of the little guy and against all those lobbyists.  They have the ability to go spend as much as they want if they sense that it will be a real donnybrook.  Then, they don't have to worry about minor parties, since the qualification for a 3rd party is twice as difficult as the qualification for a Democrat.

That really makes a lot of sense.

I think that someone should take a hard look at the results of the Federal law suit regarding Connecticut's campaign financing law.  

The plaintiffs, a group of self-described "minor" parties and minor party candidates for statewide and state legislative office, challenge the CEP on the ground that its minor party candidate qualifying criteria and distribution formulae place an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on their fundamental, First Amendment-protected right to political opportunity by enhancing the relative strength of major party candidates who can more easily qualify for public
funding.

 Judge Underhill's conclusion was in favor of the planitff's.

I find in favor of the Green Party of Connecticut, S. Michael DeRosa, and the Libertarian Party with respect to the claims in count one, two, and three.76 A declaratory judgment shall issue that the CEP unconstitutionally burdens the plaintiffs' rights to political opportunity and that the CEP's trigger provisions burden their First Amendment speech rights.

Two tiered systems are inherently unfair and will be challenged, if not by Greens as it was in Connecticut, then by others.  

Changing CA, one open mind at a time.  

---

by: wes @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 19:59:17 PM UTC

The requirements to qualifty are really pretty low (5.00 / 1)

7,500 signatures and $5 bills, from a voting pool of 20 million?  A Green party candidate would be able to do this just in the SF Bay area if they're able to organize.

IMHO, A Green candidate with $2.5 Million would be a really good thing for the Green Party. Getting those signatures and Lincolns won't be easy, but very doable for a candidate that can organize at the grassroots level.

The law can't be changed now, but this is a pilot project. I'm sure they could change it for some threshhold tied to the previous primary turnout if it becomes a problem.

I dunno, but I'm thinking of running for SoS under these rules.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 20:31:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you run (0.00 / 0)

Brian, would you support the plan for re-apportionment put forward by Green Party Candidate for Sec. of State in 2006.  Dr. Forrest Hill had an easy to understand, easy to implement plan.  However, I would guess that you were working too hard to elect Bowen to even know it existed.

Good ideas on pertinent issues always take a back seat to partisanship.  

Changing CA, one open mind at a time.  

---

by: wes @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 03:01:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The CA Green Party endorsed the bill that put it on the ballot (8.00 / 1)

Though the California Fair Elections Act (CFEA) does require different kinds of qualifying for smaller parties than parties that got more than 10% of the vote in the last election, they are nothing like the Connecticut restrictions.

First of all, parties need 20% of the vote in Connecticut to automatically qualify for full funding, but they need only 10% in the CFEA.  Most importantly, candidates from parties who don't reach the threshold can qualify for full funding in the general election by getting twice the normal number of qualifying $5 contributions and signatures, i.e. 15,000.  In Connecticut, they have to get signatures from 20% of registered voters.  The equivalent in California would be ~3.2 million.  Big difference.

Not only that, but candidates from smaller funding can qualify for $325,000 in the general election if they get half the normal number of qualifying $5 contributions (i.e. 3,750).  This gives them a fair shot to get 10% of the vote and automatically qualify the next time.

It is for all these reasons that while the Green Party of Connecticut sued, the Green Party of California endorsed.

That's not to say it will be easy for smaller party candidates or even larger party candidates to qualify.  Far from it.  Typically only 2-5 candidates qualify in Arizona and Maine, which these thresholds are based on, scaled up by the number of registered voters in California.

But really strong grassroots candidates (like Brian :-) would stand a good chance -- unlike the current system, where if you're not wealthy or don't have big money contributors, you don't stand a chance.

- Trent Lange

President, California Clean Money Action Fund
http://www.YesFairElections.org

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 21:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Independent Candidates are Treated Badly (0.00 / 0)

The California Clean Elections proposal requires independent candidates to get $5 contributions from 15,000 people.  By contrast, the proposal says Democrats and Republicans only need $5 contributions from 7,500 people.

The Clean Elections campaign has not been honest with people about how badly their proposal treats independent candidates.  Independent candidates are not the same as minor party candidates.  20% of the California electorate is registered "Declines to state", and those people are not permitted to run for office unless they qualify as independent candidates.  It is so tough to get on the ballot as an independent candidate (160,000 signatures are needed) that anyone who manages to get on the ballot as an independent obviously is a sincere candidate, and should not be required to get twice as many contributions as Democrats and Republicans.

---

by: Richard Winger @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 02:03:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All candidates have to show performance somehow (0.00 / 0)

Democratic and Republican statewide candidates won't get any funding in the general election, either, if they don't get millions of votes and win their party's primary.

The whole idea of the system in the California Fair Elections Act is that candidates don't just have to get 7,500 $5 contributions and signatures to get full funding in the general election.  They have to show performance in some other way.

Candidates from parties that got over 10% of the vote show that performance by winning their primaries with millions of actual votes.  Smaller party candidates and independent candidates don't compete for millions of votes in the primary.  But the CA Fair Elections Act gives them another way to show the performance that will give Californians confidence that they deserve full funding in the general election:  by gathering an extra 7,500 $5 contributions and signatures.

- Trent

President, California Clean Money Action Fund
http://www.YesFairElections.org

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 16:25:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Endorsement OK (0.00 / 0)

I agree with your point about the GPCA endorsement.  It is still a system that is inherently unfair.  It just happens to be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. All of the language about not letting the perfect become the enemy of the better seems to come into play.

I wonder what this state would do for a gubernatorial race.  I am sure that another Meg Whitman can afford to spend whatever (I hear at least 2 of her radio ads a day now) and that it would be pretty difficult to match that from any source other than another out of touch with the public billionaire.


Changing CA, one open mind at a time.  

---

by: wes @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 02:52:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is interesting (0.00 / 0)

I've always been curious to see if there's a better way for candidates to get their message out to the public, and while I've been a bit skeptical of these so-called "Clean Money" things, it might be worth trying for the SoS race.

There are a few things, though that are odd about current CA law. If someone is running statewide for Governor, the max they can take is about 20,000 per person. But someone running for say, AG, can only take 7500 per person. That doesn't make any sense. Both are running statewide in the same expensive media markets, but one can raise more and one cannot? Stupid.

Likewise, while I've never seen a super huge warchest be the single factor in winning a race statewide (Sen. Huffington, Gov. Checchi, Gov. Harman, et al come to mind) I don't know that one can be competitive in a state with a piddly budget and expect to win simply because Real Advertising is outspending any candidate by an exponential amount of money. I mean, how much is spent simply on Back to School advertising (which hits during fall campaign season)?

Finally, while limits are nice, there's never been effective ways to regulate placement. On broadcast TV, politicals get the lowest published rate, and there's at least some accommodation, and with direct mail, mail is sent first class at a lower rate, and the mail is "red tagged" so it goes through. However no such protections exist for the biggest growing ad space - the Internet - and there's no indication that's going to change. So while all the limits are nice, how does one compete in an expensive state like CA with a few million bucks?

--
www.gregdewar.com

---

by: gregdewar.com @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 21:09:29 PM UTC

Clean Money (0.00 / 0)

There of course have always been several problems with clean money ballot measures, some of which you can see in the City of Los Angeles where the deck wound up so skewed in favor of incumbents that even though they all are controversial and have high negatives in polling, no onen of importance even runs against them any more.  

The two biggest problems are that first, the very rich who want to manipulate government for their own benefit always find a way to spend as much money as they want.  That's why they pay those lawyers $500 an hour.  To find loopholes.  But the grassroots people can't keep up with the changing rules and they do keep changing because like the Dutch boy putting his finger in the dike, they still hope that by plugging one more hole they can finally fix the system.  But they never do and they never slow down the other side.  They just simply change politics from a community discussion to a game for professionals which of course will always favor the rich.

The second problem which I must admit they don't have much of in LA is that a lot of people and groups use these types of systems as a way to enrich themselves.  On the federal level for example, Lyndon LaRouche would never have the organization he has if not for federal funding for his bogus political campaigns which he used to set up other funding mechanisms that he now uses all the time.  The same thing is true on a smaller scale for numerous white supremecy groups and would have beenw worse if it wasn't for the fact that the federal government stopped funding federal candidates at key points when they ran out of money.  At one time, that cost David Duke close to two million dollars some of which he got later, but not in a timely manner so that he could organize a national fundraising base.  

But Brian's comment is not that far off.  If this measure goes into effect, you are going to see some crazy white supremicists running for Secretary of State and also some crooks who will take the money and make their wives their campaign managers and other such things.  That's just the nature of the beast.  So far you cannot point to one significant campaign finance reform measure that has been followed by any larger number of incumbents losing elections.

If you really want to take the money out of politics, a better way to start given the current legal limitaions in America (In Europe you can have subsidized debates and things like that) is to make everyone automatically registered to vote based on their drivers liscense or ID card.  They have to have one or the other and although I hate the conservative concept of making them show an ID card at the polls which discourages turnout, I can't think of a single reason why everyone shouldn't be automatically registered (perhaps with an optout clause for those with religious or other objections).  Parties spend so much time and effort on registration these days, that automatically having everyone sign up would cut down on expenses a lot.   JMO!

 

---

by: doughnut70 @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:28:35 AM UTC

It won't be easy to qualify (0.00 / 0)

Do you really think it would be that easy to get 7,500 people to give you $5?  It won't be.  That's more people than gave money to all the 2006 Secretary of State candidates combined!

In Arizona, Secretary of State candidates only need to get 2,500 $5 contributions and signatures to qualify for Clean Elections funding.  Do you know how many candidates successfully qualified for it in 2006?  Two.

Only three candidates for governor qualified for it in 2006 (the incumbent Democrat Janet Napolitano and two Republicans) -- despite the fact that it "only" requires 4,000 $5 contributions and signatures and if they qualify they could get up to a couple of million dollars for their campaigns.

In other words, other states that have Fair Elections systems simply haven't had a serious problem with non-serious candidates getting public financing, and neither will the California Fair Elections Act.

It's just as likely that 7,500 $5 contributions may be too high a bar as it is that it's too low a bar.

That's why it's a pilot project.

But based on other states' experience, it should be about right -- allowing candidates with a broad base of support the opportunity to run serious campaigns without having to spend all their time fundraising.

Elections should be won, not bought!

- Trent

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 21:17:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Number of contributions (0.00 / 0)

If it can be done by an unknown running for office, it can be done (and has been done in dozens of jurisdictions) by a Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke.  Again both people (especially LaRouche) have scammed the Federal system for millions of dollars in the past and it would be easier for one of these types who already has a following to qualify that it would say an unknown legislator who wanted to fight for the little guy.

You also bring up another point by mentioning Arizona and that is the question of when candidates receive money.  Because this system requires either a separate fund or money from the state, you have two different problems.  If it is a separate fund, what happens when the fund runs out.  Several Presidential Primaries have been decided when candidates didn't receive their federal money on time because the system was broke and if the money is part of the state general fund, then you have the problem with incumbents raiding the money for other projects.

You are right that elections should be won and not bought, but the system is supposed to represent the collective viewpoint of all of our citizens, not just those that are smart enough to figure out how to rig the game better because they can manipulate the rules.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 02:27:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arizona (0.00 / 0)

It also should be pointed out that Arizona was a state expected to trend heavily Democratic before they started passing all of these laws (due to a heavy hispanic and Indian population that were starting to register to vote) and instead the "old guard" in both parties has been able to keep control of what goes on in the State.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 02:29:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It hasn't happened in the states with similar Fair Elections systems (0.00 / 0)

The federal system is a completely different (and completely broken) system than that in the California Fair Elections Act.

The CFEA is based on the systems used in Arizona and Maine since 2000, and similar to the one used in Connecticut.  They simply haven't had the problems you're concerned about, even though they have much lower qualifying levels than the CFEA. Almost all of the funding has gone to serious Democratic or Republican candidates, with the rest going to a small handful of very organized third-party and independent candidates.

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 03:00:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

In Arizona, three libertarian party candidates qualified in part by holding fundraisers at lavish night clubs outside of their district to raise money.

They then turned around and spent the money in what would be considered by most as being of a questionable nature.  As an example, one candidate paid his mother 80% of what he received from the government for working as his campaign manager. I think almost everyone agrees there is a certain amount of corruption in how taxpayer dollars are spent, why would anyone think there would be less corruption with campaign funds where there use is much less regulated and almost any expenditure can be justified?  

In Arizona, there was an attempt at a repeal measure which polling showed ahead, but it was thrown off the ballot by the State Supreme Court and in Maine it's only marginally more popular because it hasn't been abused quite as much, although the LaRouchies have been out in full force and a couple of defectors have said the reason they started getting active in mainstream organizations was because they successfully used the system in Maine to supplement their federal activities and think that public financing of elections is going to grow.

Campaign finance reform has never been successful because at their heart, elections are about how we as a people allocate resources and those on top want to stay there and do what they can to confuse the issue.  Unfortunately, all of these convoluted rules just make it easier for them.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 09:30:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And so they had to return the money and one went to jail (0.00 / 0)

You'll be happy to hear that the three Libertarians that abused the system in Arizona in 2002 were ordered to return the public funds, and one of them went to jail.

You'll also be happy to hear that Arizona's qualifying thresholds are high enough that not a single Libertarian managed to qualify in the last two elections, though one independent in 2006 and two Green Party candidates in 2008 qualified for legislative races.  This out of a total of 255 candidates who did qualify.

So based on history with the Fair Elections model, we don't have much to worry about.  It's just too hard for non-serious candidates to raise enough $5 contributions and signatures to qualify the vast majority of the time, and in the rare times they do, they are strictly limited in what they can spend the funding on.

But it is indeed important to have strict enforcement.  That's why participating candidates must follow strict reporting requirements and can only spend on legitimate campaign expenses.  Violators would face fines, possible jail time, and prohibitions from running for office in the future.

There will always be people who try to commit fraud under any system.  Sometimes they'll get away with it.  They certainly do under the current system.  But under the current system, nearly every single elected official owes their election to campaign contributors.  Some would argue that this is a form legalized bribery.  That has to change, and the California Fair Elections Act would start to change it.

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arizona (0.00 / 0)

I was not aware of any candidate being ordered to return their money, but I do find it hard to believe there is much to prevent fraud when several candidates in our current system including challengers to incumbents have successfully run what they called "front porch" campaigns where they did nothing except hire a couple of staff members in case something happened to make them feel like they needed to campaign.  

I don't believe there is any way to legally prevent people from cheating the system if they want to given the current court rulings on such matters that I am aware of and Lyndon LaRouche and many others are showing that they will find ways to game whatever system is out there.  Worse, the special interests also have found ways to game the system and make things worse because grass roots candidates can't keep up.  

You are however correct that the current system also has problems.  Our founding fathers wanted money to have a role in the system because they were worried about the "have nots" taking from the "haves" which is not a concern that I think most people have today.  

But until you get a court ruling that changes Buckley vs Valeo completely, you will have rich people trying to get more influence and I think you limit that more by having strong grass roots organizations to counter their influence than you do by any steps to regulate them.  That is why I support Universal registration.  

But campaign reform everywhere it has been tried has proved instead that it helps protect unpopular incumbents and cuts down on competitive elections (Just look at the City of Los Angeles).

---

by: doughnut70 @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:23:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Participants sign binding contracts (0.00 / 0)

This is a voluntary system in which the candidates who participate sign binding contracts, so the courts have already ruled you can place much tighter restriction and enforcement on them than you could on other candidates.

So not only were the Libertarian candidates you mentioned ordered to return the public funds they spent illegally and their ringleader thrown in jail, but a Republican who was elected using the system and later to found to have broken the spending limits was actually kicked out of office:

http://www.democraticundergrou...

If you care about grass roots candidates like you say you do, you'd support Fair Elections, because it's grassroots candidates who most need the money to compete with Big Money candidates on a level playing field -- which is what Fair Elections provide.

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:49:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can't say that (0.00 / 0)

We can go back and forth on this, because I am extremely skeptical you can limit things like this, especially when many successful campaigns including some that were trailing in the polls when they started were successful by doing nothing but staying home and answering questions from anyone who came to the candidates while still spending substantial amounts on staffs to help them answer the questions that came in.   In general I just find it hard to believe that a government that hasn't been able to regulate behavior in legislative bodies which do have a tremendous number of rules to follow could do so in a setting like a campaign where so many different things have been done successfully.  

I also would be concerned given your response that one of the things that could happen would be attempts at more regulation of creatiive ways to increase voter turnout like doughnut giveaways and other such things that help to motivate people to go to the polls.

But the two biggest things still go.  LaRouchies and the Klan certainly are organized enough to qualify for matching funds and experience with the Federal program and the clean money systems in several cities have shown that they will use that money to help them expand their operations and of course the fact that no jurisdiction with a campaign finance system has ever shown challengers being more successful in challenging incumbents than they were when the system was put into place.  

---

by: doughnut70 @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:32:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can't say that (0.00 / 0)

We can go back and forth on this, because I am extremely skeptical you can limit things like this, especially when many successful campaigns including some that were trailing in the polls when they started were successful by doing nothing but staying home and answering questions from anyone who came to the candidates while still spending substantial amounts on staffs to help them answer the questions that came in.   In general I just find it hard to believe that a government that hasn't been able to regulate behavior in legislative bodies which do have a tremendous number of rules to follow could do so in a setting like a campaign where so many different things have been done successfully.  

I also would be concerned given your response that one of the things that could happen would be attempts at more regulation of creatiive ways to increase voter turnout like doughnut giveaways and other such things that help to motivate people to go to the polls.

But the two biggest things still go.  LaRouchies and the Klan certainly are organized enough to qualify for matching funds and experience with the Federal program and the clean money systems in several cities have shown that they will use that money to help them expand their operations and of course the fact that no jurisdiction with a campaign finance system has ever shown challengers being more successful in challenging incumbents than they were when the system was put into place.  

---

by: doughnut70 @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:32:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apples and oranges (0.00 / 0)

Remember, the California Fair Elections is modelled after the Clean Elections systems in Arizona and Maine, not the outdated, partial matching Federal or Los Angeles or other city systems you're thinking about.

Arizona and Maine have not been overrun by publicly-funded LaRouchies or Klansmen.  As with any system, a few people tried to abuse the system, like the Libertarians you mentioned way back in 2002.  They had to give the money back and one of them went to jail.  A Republican who abused the system was kicked out of office.  So enforcement works.

Most importantly, grassroots candidates who aren't wealthy or don't have Big Money connections are able to run and win with Fair Elections systems.

Fortunately, 63% of Californians seem to believe it's more important to do that and get politicians out of the fundraising game than to worry about the off chance that some crazy person somehow will qualify and waste the lobbyist fees that this initiative will use to pay for the system.

---

by: cacleanmoney @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 20:19:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Slight correction (0.00 / 0)

In my previous post I was of course referring to Brian's comment about possibly running for Secretary of State and making the point that some crazy people will have exactly the same idea and try to take advantage of the system.

On having everyone registered to vote, that would also allow candidates and parties to spend all of their time on educating citizens and getting the message out.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:32:36 AM UTC