Washblog

If I could find a way to make it work in a single post, I'd describe all that went on at that afternoon concerning election integrity (Representative Pat Sullivan) and Governor Gregoire's Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Costs and Access (Senator Keiser).  But I'm going to focus in on what Representative Miloscia and John King of Washington Public Campaigns had to tell us about clean campaigns.   They need something specific from us - strategic support for legislation that Mark and other legislators plan to introduce next session.  This is legislation they've been trying to pass for years.  It will happen with enough citizen support.

Mark began his presentation with his observation, approximately quoted above, on the travesty that the flow of big money into our elections has become here in Washington State.   Mark's an energetic, eye-flashing speaker,  quick in his words and movements.   Much of his legislation  champions  economic fairness, government integrity, and citizen empowerment.  Like most of the Democratic state legislators in South King County, he's a familiar face at community gatherings, a real representative of the people.

Political donations are considered an expression of free speech.  For that reason, public campaign laws provide for voluntary restrictions on donations.   In Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut, where this legislation has passed, candidates who choose public funding raise a certain amount through small donations, say $5,000.  After that time, whatever their opponent raises is matched by public funds.  John King noted that this results in more candidates -- including more candidates of color, more political discussion during campaign season, higher voter turnout, and candidates who enter office independent of special interests.

It's an uphill battle to get clean campaign laws on the books.  The legislators who fight for it need people in the community fighting alongside with them.  Miloscia has been working on the cause, "since day one", he told us.   "A few years ago I sent a questionnaire out to my district," Mark said.  "I asked if people supported the right to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.  Six hundred people answered.   Only three people said they didn't support this. Three out of six hundred!  But when this legislation came up for votes - three years in a row the influence of a few special powerful interest groups killed it."   Last session, SB 5470, Allowing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada was signed into law.   Unfortunately, the law has no effect as long as the Republican-controlled US  legislature refuses to allow Washington State to buy these drugs.

The sense of frustration in the room on the subject of dirty money in politics was palpable.   The stories poured out of us, stories of south King County cities blindsided in recent elections, where incumbents raised the usual $10,000 or $15,000 but developers came in and dropped that much in single donation and bought the seat.   We talked about the 2004 Supreme Court race, when developers successfully backed pro-development Jim Johnson with huge donations.  We talked about Americans for Limited Government, a radical right-wing group that has spent $200,000 so far on I-933 as part of a nationwide strategy to weaken environmental laws.  There were stories of good legislation that had no chance from the beginning.   "I've been at hearings," one of the activists said, "where the lobbyists for the big pharmaceuticals stood in a line at the back of the room while people from the community testified.  The lobbyists didn't even have to testify, all they had to do was stand there."   Clearly, our political choices are severely restricted here in Washington under the weight of this dirty money.

It's not enough to pass partial campaign reform, Miloscia said.  We need comprehensive reform.  We need public financing for the legislature, for state-wide offices, for judges and the ports and the city offices.   And because some candidates won't choose public fuunding, we also need to prohibit money from unions and corporations.   Unless we make this reform comprehensive, the special interests are going to chip away at it; they'll find the loopholes.

This last session, important campaign finance reform did pass.  HB 1226 extends campaign contributions limits ($700 for State Legislative seats and $1,400 for Supreme Court, Superior Court, Court of Appeals, and Port).  There's lots more to be done.  Miloscia intends try again next session on the three bills, listed below, that did not make it this time around.  And, he said, he can use our help:

• HB 1526, Establishing the public financing of campaigns
• House Bill 2449, Campaign contribution limitations  To limit individual contributions to candidates for any public office to $500 for each election cycle. Contributions made by political parties or caucus political committees may not exceed 50 or 35 cents multiplied by the number of eligible registered voters in the jurisdiction for each election, depending on the contributor. The bill makes other changes to contribution laws.
• HB 1525, Regulating Campaign Finances  Introduced by Rep. Mark Miloscia on January 26, 2005, to establish that state contractors may not make, either directly or indirectly, any  contribution to any political party, candidate or committee. Also prohibits a corporation or labor organization from using treasury funds for the purpose of making a contribution to influence an election.

I spoke with Mark during the week for a followup.   What kind of constituent help, specifically, is needed to get these bills passed into law?

People don't realize that it's not legislators who get the bills passed, he said, it's the community.   An individual legislator, unless they're a (Senate Majority Leader) Lisa Brown or (Speaker of the House) Frank Chopp, doesn't have the power to get a controversial bill through the system.  There's got to be an energized grassroots.   We need to have people in every district who are willing to call their legislators, to encourage them to support a bill through all through the chokepoints.  There needs to be active tracking on a bill so that people know which legislators need to support it when - and so they're ready to make those calls when they're needed.  If we have that that kind of citizen support for clean campaigns, we'll get clean campaigns.

A lot of good bills die because there's just enough opposition to slow them down at a busy time.   That's what happened with Joe McDermott's bill ( HB 1436, Allowing public funding of local office campaigns), last session.  It was moving through the process just fine, but then we came to the end of the session when time was running out for everything, and the Republicans had a hissy fit on the floor.  We had expected maybe a teeny little debate on Joe's bill.  But suddenly the rhetoric got heated and long. It really took us by surprise.

We didn't have the time to defend this bill.  We could have won the debate.  There really wasn't any policy issue that you could argue.  We were changing only about three words in an existing statute - we were just reinstating a previous law that an intiative had overturned.   Joe's bill died because we didn't have time to debate it.  We had to move on so other bills wouldn't die.   Now if there had been 30 members who got up, maybe, and said this is very important for us - it would have had a chance.   Fair share had that kind political power behind it..  Joe's bill would have easily passed it it had had that kind of support.

HB 1436 removed two words only from RCW 42.17.128.  The main text of the bill reads: "Public funds, whether derived through taxes, fees, penalties, or any other sources, shall not be used to finance political campaigns for state ((or local)) office."   Removing these two words from the RCW will reverse an unintended consequence of a 1992 Initiative, I-134: the invalidation of local ordinances that allowed public campaigns.

"Let me give you a little anecdote," Mark said, "I'm really up front about the issues that are important to me: ending homelessness, public financing of campaigns, providing a working wage, taking power away from special interests and giving it back to the people.  I recently sent out a mailing on these issues.  And I got back an anonymous note.  I'm one of those special interests that you want to take power from, the person wrote.  And I don't like it.  It's interesting that he sent his letter to me anonymously.  Look, it is a power structure out there. One person with a lot of money has a disproportionate influence on what gets passed and what dies.  It affects even the good guys.   Remember how Paul Allen got the legislature to call a special session on the stadium?  Generally, Paul Allen backs good causes.  But I try to be consistent.   Even your friends, even your friends do better when the system itself is fair."

To help provide strategic support for public campaign legislation, contact Washington Public Campaigns.