NEW POLL: Big Majority Supports Public Financing (Sirota)

[kpete]

NEW POLL: Big Majority Supports Public Financing, Lawmakers Urged to Sign Pledge
by davidsirota
Wed Jun 21, 2006

.......................

According to a brand new bipartisan poll http://www.campaignmoney.org/polling released by the watchdog group Public Campaign Action Fund, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns - that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not.

These poll numbers - which have been corroborated by earlier polls http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=5E2CC1E6-0E20-432D-2485EB212108594E - are not just being put out into the ether. They connect to direct action we can all take. Public Campaign Action Fund is now launching an effort to get every candidate running for office to sign http://www.campaignmoney.org/votersfirstpledge an official pledge to support public financing of elections, as well as other critical clean government reforms. Get in touch with your Members of Congress and your congressional candidates today, and demand they sign their names to this important pledge. This is a very real way we - the vast majority of Americans - can begin to take our democracy back from the Big Money interests that have performed a hostile takeover of our government.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/21/104517/406

[still_one]

1. and what does it matter unless they vote

[Tigress DEM]

7. Voting AIN'T the problem... getting votes counted honestly is.. nt

[bluestateguy]

2. I don't

That will come with limits on spending, which then limits GOTV efforts, which drives down turnout.

In presidential elections, I would keep the public financing for the general election, but junk the spending limits: let candidates raise private money in the general election campaign.

Many people on this board complain about the Democratic presidential candidates only targeting 20 states and writing off most of the South and Mountain West. By constraining the money Democrats can raise and spend in the campaign, you worsen this problem. If you want the Democrats campaigning in 40-50 states, rather than 20-25 states, you need to open up access to money, not close it off.

[WyLoochka]

4. It would primarily limit

the disgusting ads, I think. Those 30 second ads are a total waste and are extremely corrosive. Most are false portrayals or down right dirty lies. They make the wealthy corpos even more wealthy and heavily influence the uninformed.

In order that people be able to develope a true understanding of the candidates governing philosophies - there should be mandatory debates conducted on our air waves FREE of charge, during prime time, once a week, once the conventions have selected their candidates.

The infotainer whore TV pundits (the jerks we see day in and day out) should be barred from participating in the debates in any way.

If it weren't for the damned prime time ads the candidates feel they have to buy - they wouldn't need to raise such an obscene amount of money. Successful GOTV drives are staffed primarily by volunteers. We need a few permanent paid people in each state to direct efforts. Paying them would cost far less than paying gazillions for those repulsive ads.

[IndyOp]

6. Simplest way to level the playing field in one fell swoop...

Require TV & Radio stations and newspapers to air/print equal numbers of commercials for all of the official candidates for each race. The number of commercials would depend on the particular race in question. Each candidate gest the same amount of time - they pay to create their commercials in whatever format/content they want.

The BIGGEST expense in campaigns is advertising - take that expense away and the playing field is very close to level immediately.

Also re: public financing of campaigns - check into the Arizona laws - candidates who get a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot get $X to spend during the primaries. If they make it past the primaries they get $XX more. If they accept the public funds and spend past their limit they forfeit the race. One person won his race, was sworn in, and then it was discovered that he had spent more than the limit -- he was removed from his new position and his opponent sworn in.

:kick:

[chill_wind]

3. Independants- 78% . Dems would be fools to ignore these latest numbers

and not find a way to exploit and use them for the good.

They can't campaign on a 75% winning issue like this?

A small recent example (in NC judicial race)of how we could hope to see it work, at least somehow-- in some beginning way...
. . . . .

Matching Up in North Carolina
Submitted by Katie Schlieper on Tue, 06/20/2006 - 9:00am.

It's the second time out for North Carolina's judicial public financing system and this article focuses on matching funds that allow candidates using the system to challenge privately financed opponents.

see http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/katie-schlieper

and Candidate Receives First 'Rescue' Funds
AP

(06/19/06 -- RALEIGH) - North Carolina's voluntary public financing program for appellate court races made history this month when a candidate received state funds after her non-participating challenger raised more.

(...)
"Supporters of the voluntary public financing program contend it reduces questions about the partiality of judges. Judicial candidates often receive donations from attorneys, many of whom may wind up arguing before the judges they have supported.

(snip)

Judges are "not having to kowtow or rely on some special interest group or some people that are wanting to do business with them," Hall said. "The money essentially is coming from a blind trust. It's clean money from the public."



http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=state&id=4286686

[livvy]

5. It's about time.

Anyone who has any doubts about how important clean elections are for our Democracy should read "Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betray Our Democracy" by Mark Green 2002.
From page 270:
"A comprehensive campaign finance reform program is ideally suited to achieve the conservative goals on which our economy and society are built- competition, efficiency, accountability, open markets, and market integrity. Specifically, four reforms would restore our electoral democracy by elevating voters over donors: spending limits, public financing, a restructured enforcement agency, and free broadcast time and mailings."

As far as caps on campaign spending go, right now Buckley v. Valeo (1976 on spending ceilings) would impede any attempts to include it as part of finance reform. Without caps, money will still find a way back into the formula. Caps work with contribution limits to keep the system clean. Green feels that Buckley needs to be overturned.

[autorank]

8. This is amazing...now I can sleep;) It's the final piece. A very K&R

40% or so think that the election was stolen (I'll bet it would be 60% if "possible" was an option).

84% want to abandon e-voting.

Now a clearl majority favors public financing.

The cost of this is just a fraction of the tragic cost of failing to adopt public financing.

[mom cat]

9. Kick and wow. I am finding out every day that I am a true centrist:

One that believes, with most Americans, that we need a lot of radical progressive reforms.

[Raster]

10. If we had public campaign financing, who would the crooked lobbyists

give all the hard-earned money to? How would their special interests get undue advantage of over public interest?
:sarcasm: