 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NYCCE NEWS
|
Highlights of Clean Elections in 2004 What's happening around the country to take back democracy The Maine Citizen Leadership Fund reports a whopping 83% of the state senate (29 out of 35) and 77% of the house (116 out of 151) will be made up of legislators who ran "clean." This is up from 2002, when 77% of the senate and 55% of the house was made up of legislators who ran clean. Both major parties are heavily represented: among Democrats, 15 incoming senators and 70 incoming house members ran "clean"; among Republicans, 14 incoming senators, and 42 incoming house members ran clean. More candidates than ever ran in the primaries (429, compared to 382 in 2002), and the number who chose to participate in Clean Elections was up 50% compared to 2002 (308 vs. 206). In other exciting election news, Arizona came out on top with a victory over the No Taxpayer Money for Politicians Committee, which tried to repeal the state's Clean Money Clean Elections law. In addition, the number of Arizona officials who ran “clean” rose substantially over the 2002 election. In 2004, 46 candidates for the Arizona state legislature were elected with clean money. So, too, were all four of the winning candidates for the corporation commission. As a result, 10 of 11 of the state's statewide elected officials, including the governor, are now clean. Overall, 58% of Arizona's incoming state house (35 of 60) and 23% of the state senate (7 of 30) will be serving without dependence on private campaign contributors. In both cases this is an increase from 2002, when the house was 45% clean and the senate was 17% clean. In November, North Carolina celebrated its first round of voter-owned judicial elections with 12 of the 16 candidates running for 2 seats on the 7- member Supreme Court and 3 seats on the 15-member Court of Appeals using public financing. All five winners supported public financing and either used the system or tried and failed to qualify. The judicial voter guide, which was mandated as part of the Voter-Owned Election law, was prepared and mailed to all households (4 million in all) in the state. It was applauded by all sides as one of the best features of the new program and it launched a new tradition of voter information in North Carolina. New Mexico passed public financing for the state's Public Regulation Commission in 2004. Now, New Mexicans for Campaign Reform, a coalition made up of New Mexico PACE, New Mexico Common Cause and other allied organizations, will pursue public financing of Supreme Court and Appellate Court justices in the upcoming legislative session that begins in January and ends in March. Initial meetings with various members of New Mexico's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and the New Mexico Bar Association show strong support for public financing for these positions. A fast-moving victory in New Jersey marked the first time that state legislators have voted to institute full public funding for their own elections. This reform bill was one element of a 25-bill package of ethics and campaign finance reform provisions. The new law will be a pilot project that initially targets two districts in 2005 and expands participation to a minimum of four districts in 2007 (districts in New Jersey serve a population of 200,000 each). Legislative champions of the policy embraced public financing after years of education and lobbying by New Jersey Citizen Action and the Fair and Clean Elections Coalition which consists of more than 60 organizations. Connecticut looks ripe for passage of Clean Elections this year. A strong history of past legislative support for Clean Elections, the money scandals surrounding Governor Rowland's tenure and resignation, and election gains that have increased the number of supporters in both the House and the Senate bode well for a 2005 victory. Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Connecticut Common Cause, and coalition partners are mounting an ambitious legislative campaign while the Connecticut Coalition for Clean Elections is gearing up for the 2005 battle in the upcoming legislative session. During 2004, Hawaii Clean Elections and their allies worked feverishly to pass a Clean Elections bill covering House legislative races through the Senate and the House only to see it stalled and killed in conference committee. While Clean Elections didn't prevail in Hawaii in 2004 great progress was made and critical intelligence gathered that will move the work forward during the 2005 legislative session. Hawaii Clean Elections has spent valuable time and effort to position themselves in the 2005 session stronger than ever before. Portland, Oregon is shaping up to be the first city to pass full public financing of elections. The Money in Politics Research Action Project has been deeply involved with the efforts spearheaded by Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten and Auditor Gary Blackmer to bring full public financing to the City of Roses. A very favorable public hearing was held in May 2004 where the auditor's office was instructed to prepare a proposal for consideration by the City Council. Results of the 2004 election have increased support for public financing on the City Council where a majority of the decision makers appear supportive of the system, including the new mayor. The campaign is expanding its grassroots base-building in preparation for a spring Council vote. If enacted, Portland will be the first major city in the country to have full public financing of elections and, as such, will be an important Clean Elections victory (12 cities currently have partial public financing systems). West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections pushed a Clean Elections bill through the 2004 legislative session and convinced a legislature committee to study the law in the off-season through interim committees. During the interim committee meetings, the coalition has been doing a fantastic job of educating the legislators and is working with them to craft a pilot project that they will try to pass during the 2005 session. Progress in Maryland included release of the Stenberg Study Commission report recommending public financing as the best campaign finance reform option for statewide and legislative offices. These types of blue ribbon study commissions are often a precursor to policy change in Maryland. The coalition in Maryland, led by Progressive Maryland and Maryland Common Cause, is developing a comprehensive three-to-four year legislative campaign plan to pass Clean Elections. All the key elements are coming together for a Maryland victory in the next few years: strong lead organizations, supportive legislative relationships, expanding field capacity, the right mix of money-in-politics scandals and a diverse and active coalition of participating organizations. The California Clean Money Campaign, along with coalition members, will re-introduce a Clean Elections bill covering all statewide and legislative offices as well as a bill singling out public financing for the office of Secretary of State. Loni Hancock, Assemblywoman from Berkeley, is the principal sponsor of the full bill and is recruiting co-sponsors. In the last session the coalition passed the bill out of the Elections committee and are gearing up to get it even farther this session. A glimpse into other states: The long time nemesis of Clean Elections in Massachusetts , House Speaker Thomas Finneran, has left the legislature for a private sector job. This opening allows for new dialogue in the state house surrounding publicly financed elections. Montana saw a change in their state legislature with the Senate changing hands from Republican to Democrat. New Senate Majority Leader Jon Ellingson has been the lead sponsor of Clean Election bills in years past. Reformers in the Big Sky state are planning to submit a judicial public financing bill this session. Through the hard work of the Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action (MAPA), the Minnesota state house looks a lot different. With a change of 14 seats in the House, Clean Elections is now back in play in Minnesota. Illinois saw some of the most egregious spending in a Supreme Court race in state history setting up a fight for full public financing of judicial races in the sessions to come. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Vermont 's right to cap spending on statewide elections. The fight will continue as opponents of Clean Elections are likely to appeal. And of course there are many more states and organizations that have put a lot of hard work and energy into passing Clean Elections in 2005 and beyond: Including Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Western States Center, Midwest States Center, Democracy South and Northeast Action. This article is based on a report by Mary McClelland of Public Campaign. To view the original go to www.publicampaign.org . ================================================================ BIG MONEY WON BIG IN 2004 Big money won big in the 2004 elections. In 96 percent of House races and 91 percent of Senate races that had been decided by November 3, those who had spent the most money won, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, whose website is www.opensecrets.org. Biggest spenders were victorious in 413 of 432 House races and 31 of 34 Senate races. In the race for the White House , President Bush spent a total of $306.3 million in private and government funds from January 2003. Sen. John Kerry spent $241.7 million. These figures do not include spending by the political parties or advocacy groups. While the overwhelming majority of the 2004 races featured incumbents running for reelection, money was also decisive when two newcomers squared off in open seat races. The top spender in House open- seat contests won 84 percent of the time. In the Senate, the candidate who spent the most in an open- seat race did even better, winning 88 percent of the time. Self financed
candidates did not do well. Only one candidate aided by $1 million or
more in personal funds won. That was Michael McCaul (R), who put $1.9
million of his own money into his successful run for Texas'
10th district . In all, 21 House and Senate candidates spent more
than $1 million of their own money and lost at the polls. Only seven of
them even made it to the general election. Those included Erskine Bowles
(D), former chief of staff to President Clinton, who spent $1.5 million
of his personal funds in losing the North
Carolina Senate race to Rep. Richard Burr (R). Bowles spent $6.8
million of his own money in a losing effort versus Elizabeth Dole (R)
two years ago. The biggest spender of personal funds in this election
cycle was Blair Hull (D), who invested $28.7 million into his Illinois
Senate race . He lost in the primary to the eventual winner of the
seat, Barack Obama.
|