Washblog

Through a lot of self contemplation, last year I realized that the one thing that I really am hard core about no matter what is that I hate anyone who is a rat fink or a demogogue: Improper use of words is forgivable, as opposed to improper use of their meaning.  You were not looking at Clean Elections on Wikipedis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_elections, you were looking at criticsims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform#Criticisms_of_campaign_finance_reform

Clean Elections are NOT a suspect thing,  Why are you WASTING YOUR and OUR time?  You are NOT quoting what I found on Wikipedia about Clean Elections.  You are quoting specious junk from well funded groups who OPPOSE Clean Elections that ended up in a criticisms page.  

Fine - look at the other side.  Promulagating the other side is an acedemic exercise at best and (expletive deleted) at worst.

" public financing tends to have the unintended consequence of favoring incumbents: "disclosure requirements may lead individuals to avoid giving to challengers, and increase giving to incumbents, as individual large donors might wish to avoid angering the current office-holder. "

Well gee whiz ALL election donors are available on the web, are they talking about Clean Election states or elections in general?

"Restrictions on giving and spending also seem to benefit incumbents, further entrenching them from effective challenge."  

Boloney, you get a bunch o' people together and you can get on the ballot.  You actually get money to help with your campaign.  Be a big company and you are out of luck.  Too bad, so sad.  But - the people elected by clean elections really realize they are 'hired' by the people that VOTE for them, instead of being hired by the big donors.

"Another argument is that money can never be separated from politics -- as demonstrated in 2004 with the influence of 527s like MoveOn.org and Swift Vote Veterans for Truth [sic]."

Oh well, they can run ads. With Clean Elections the candidate get equal dollars when those groups intervene.

"It's interesting that both the AFL-CIO and the ACLU oppose restrictions on campaign financing."

Maybe not so much.  This may be old news. Anyway, lobbyists who represent any kind of group are not out of the picture.  They are communicating ideas of their group, be it industry or social welfare or labor, or whatever.  Fine.  Money to buy votes is out of the picture.  Lets the unions focus on organizing workers.  Lets the ACLU focus on defending people.  The real issue is expanding clean elections to courts.  I think the progressive organizations are out bid by Republicans in the court races now.

Ask friends who might live in Portland Or, Arizona, Maine what they think about this. I did, they live it, think it's right.  I even had a friend who ran for judge as a Republican in Arizona who wished court races were part of clean election laws.

Unless you think regular people are stupid.  

I wonder what constitutional scholars say about the issue. I support public financing of elections, but I do see that it does in some sense interfere with peoples' right to free speech: to use their energy, time, and money as they wish to broadcast their opinions. So, it seems to me to be a matter of conflicting rights (goods): the right to free speech versus the right to a fair, uncorrupted political process.

There is no First Amendment issue here. None. Noithing in this legislation dictates that any candidate must accept public funding. It says only that if opponents of a publicy financed candidate choose to stay with private funding, that the publicly funded candidate will be given matching funds with which to compete.

The free speech issue is a straw man, a red herring, a tar baby, and utterly, thoroughly, irrevocably bogus.

Now nuance that!

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

Public funding in itself doesn't stop anyone's free speech. In fact, it enables more speech.

The bill, EHB 1551, doesn't explicitly say anything about allowing or disallowing private funds or about how much public funds will be provided to match any private funds. It just says that counties, cities, towns and districts can institute public financing, provided they use only local funds and they submit the proposal to voters for approval. The bill leaves it up to the local jurisdictions to work out the details.

A city could allow unlimited private contributions but then give matching public funds -- up to a some limit, perhaps. That wouldn't be a free speech issue at all, right?

So, the free speech issue isn't due to public financing. It's only due to limits on private contributions, I think. But the societal good of having an uncorrupted political process justifies restrictions on financing.

BTW, I got this from Washclean:

Last week, with incredible grassroots support, we pushed the Local Choice / Local Option bill (EHB 1551) through the House, with a favorable vote 56-38. Initially, a majority of legislators and the leadership did NOT favor these bills this session; it was YOUR VOICE that made this happen!

NOW, a SENATE VOTE is scheduled!

The Senate companion bill, SSB 5278, sponsored by Sen. Rosa Franklin, will be voted in the Senate this coming week - perhaps Wednesday, February 6th, or Friday.

We are counting votes - and THIS VOTE WILL BE VERY CLOSE! If you care about public financing, please don't be silent! - we need EVERYONE to speak up.

Contact YOUR senator. Call the Legislative Hotline, 1-800-562-6000 - operators will deliver your message; it takes only 1-2 minutes.

Even better, Email your legislator: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

Ask them to approve the Local Choice / Local Option bill, SSB 5278.

Send copies of your letters - and any replies - to wpc@washclean.org.

If your legislators previously have voiced support for Local Choice, thank them! and tell them, now it is time to prove their support, with a vote FOR SSB 5278 in the State Senate.

Key points: This bill is only about giving cities, counties, towns and local districts control over their own affairs - Local Choice. It is not a mandate. No state funds are involved. It simply gives permission to local officials and voters, to design programs of public financing for campaigns for local office - if they want to.

In fact, the bill says any proposed program must first be approved by local voters, in a local referendum. Clearly, any program would need plenty of local support, or it would not happen.

According to the wikipedia article on the topic, public financing may have the unintended consequence of favoring incumbents: "disclosure requirements may lead individuals to avoid giving to challengers, and increase giving to incumbents, as individual large donors might wish to avoid angering the current office-holder. Restrictions on giving and spending also seem to benefit incumbents, further entrenching them from effective challenge."

First, that wikipedia article on campaign finance sucks.

Second, that particular (vague) criticism is of campaign finance reform in general and not of public financing (in particular).

Third, I'll point our WPC people to the wikipedia articles, so they can correct it. (Did I mention that it sucks?)