Public Financing Resolution at your precinct convention

This seems like a great second option. (0.00 / 0)

John,

For those of us, like myself, that are relatively new to politics, can you summarize the process of:

1) Getting this proposal before all precinct concentions state-wide.
2) What passage rate/needs to happen for this to move on to the state convention.

Thanks, and keep up the great work!

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:07:23 PM UTC

Getting resolutions to the state convention (0.00 / 0)

As for your question about how to get proposals to precinct conventions around the state and the chance of success at the state convention, here is what I wrote in a separate posting:

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

(I'm sure there's a better way to link to it, but I'm new to this!)

---

by: MarkCamann @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 17:05:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good stuff (0.00 / 0)

We'll see that post on the front page later.

Mark, in terms of links (I should write up a "how-to" post while I'm at it)...

You can just paste the link in like you did which will truncate it if it is long. You have two other options.

Simple: {http://website.com text you want linked}

Just use the [ ] style of brackets instead.

Or you can use the HTML way.

{a href="http://www.website.com"}texas you want linked{/a}

And in this case, use the < > style brackets instead.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 19:17:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great plan! (0.00 / 0)

http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...

---

by: Take Back the Texas Supreme Court @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:30:53 PM UTC

Clean Elections Texas (0.00 / 0)

This might answer some of the questions others are asking about Clean Elections.

There is a good section devoted to the Clean Elections issue on the TCAN website here.  It has testimonials, talking points, video resources and flyers.  This will help anyone trying to educate other citizens at your precinct convention.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:47:54 PM UTC

This is exciting (0.00 / 0)

Tangentially, in College Station we recently had passed a city ordinance that provides a space on the city's web site, and requirement to post, all campaign finance reports of people running for city council.  This is our first real effort at any sort of campaign reform.  I know that Austin was successful a few years ago in working around our restrictive state laws to create voluntary campaign finance reform.  Did anyone here work on that effort?  I would really like to know the specifics of how this got passed and what was in the ordinance(s).    

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 18:13:51 PM UTC

another point of view (3.00 / 1)

At the risk of getting called all kinds of horrible names, I have to offer a contradictory opinion.

I will go to my precinct convention, but if the vote were held today, I'd vote against the TCAN public financing resolution.

Simply put - I'm just not sold on public financing.  

I understand all the arguments in favor of publicly financed campaigns, I just don't think the pros outweigh the cons.  Here's why:

1)  I believe that in politics money does not equal property; in politics, I believe money equals speech.  I do not understand how publicly financed campaigns are constitutional.  Damn it, if I want to give a little of my hard-earned pay to candidate I support in order to help them win their election, that ought to be my right.  And if it ought to be my right, it ought to be the right of the "special interests" too.

2)  I don't want my tax dollars being used to support candidates who hold positions different than I hold on key issues.  I don't want to subsidize the campaigns of anti-choice, pro-voucher, pro-war, CHIP-cutting Republicans.  'Nuff said?

3)  I don't want my tax dollars going towards vanity candidates.  I know this is bound to sound like I'm picking a fight, but I'm going to speak the truth here.  David Van Os, Ray McMurrey, Gene Kelley, Victor Morales and others simply WILL NOT WIN.  I have no interest in paying for them to lose.

4)  Frustrating as it is, the "big donors" who "control" things play a more complicated role than we'd like to admit.  Yes, they exert too much influence.  But that doesn't mean they should exert no influence at all.  High dollar donors often have a history of success in business, the law, philanthropy, etc.  Many high-dollar donors are also far more politically savvy than we give them credit for.  They learn about voting records, district competitiveness and more.  Let me be clear: no high-dollar donor should ever have veto power over a campaign, but my point is that I do think they represent a gauntlet that is healthy for some candidates to run.

John and/or others, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these concerns.  I'm interested in a real dialogue...

---

by: CMistress @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:14:20 AM UTC

Thank your for your comments. (3.00 / 1)

It is nice when people honestly state their opinion as you have just done. I won't call you any names, however, I do have to disagree with you. In Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky, Mr. Chomsky notes that 80% of candidate donations come from 1/4 of 1% of America's population. This seems aristocratic, and undemocratic to me.

1) You're right, to an extent. In politics, money does not equal property. However, it takes money to run for office. Not just for the campaign, but to free candidates up to actually spend time with their communities. By the way, if you want to donate your hard earned money to a candidate of your choice, under John's proposal - you can.

We are a democratic republic, but beyond individual donations from individuals in "special interests," allowing special interests to dictate our electoral process is undemocratic, and disenfranchises citizens.

2) This is a fair argument. Let me ask you this though, if allowing some of your tax dollars to fund a candidate you disagree with creates a system in which officials are accountable to citizens, and not "special interests," don't you think it might be worth spreading the chief burden among all citizens?

3) You need to read up on public financing. Under public financing systems, candidates have to demonstrate a certain amount of viability. Furthermore, I'm not so sure I agree with labeling these people as "vanity" candidates. Bottom line, if candidates can catalyze enough support to qualify for public financing, they should get the financing.

4) These "big donors" should exert influence, but allowing them to exert more influence than the average voter leads to a system just begging for corruption and special favor. Of course these donors are politically savvy, they are more likely to be educated, wealthy, and in powerful positions. None of that makes them more important than working class citizens.

For me, it comes down to one thing - candidates in our current system are forced to spend a majority of their time "dialing for dollars" and pandering to indiividuals and groups that can and will fund their campaigns. Elected officials are representatives, however, and should be able to spend their campaigns talking with citizens, and getting to know their constituencies. It's really all about representation - our current system represents the rich and powerful while public financing would represent ALL citizens with relative equality.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:17:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great reply Doug (0.00 / 0)

I think the common argument people make against public financing is that their idea of "fringe" candidates are going to qualify for money.  It's not that easy to qualify.  

Every public funding campaign law has minimum qualifications for the candidates to meet.  They have to provide a certain number of signatures from the people they want to represent and they have to collect a certain amount of money from those supporters as well.  It's not like you just announce and qualify for the funding.

Your Gene Kelly types certainly won't inspire people to give them money, even nominal amounts to qualify.

The mechanism for the amount of money and signatures all depends on the implementation of the law.  It's all up to the jurisdiction that implements it to set those standards.

Here is a sample from the Public Campaign web site:

Public Campaign Model
Section 103: Eligibility for Clean Money/Clean Elections Campaign Funding for Party Candidates

Based on discussions with expert signature gatherers and fund-raisers, and on the experience of the one locale in the U.S. that has been using a similar qualifying requirement (Tucson, AZ), the Working Group on Electoral Democracy set the requirement for a candidate running in a district with a population of approximately 500,000 (e.g., one congressional district) at 1,000 Qualifying Contributions.

---

by: sonia @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 14:53:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A couple of additional points worth mentioning (0.00 / 0)

The supreme court recently ruled that that restricting a candidate's access to money was tantamount to restricting her/his speech.  But that is a really an upside down ruling that in saner times will be reversed.  Not restricting money in campaign means those of more humble means or those whose sense of integrity keep them from selling influence have less voice than rich influence peddlers. The fundamental value of democracy is predicated on the idea that the halls of power and justice are accessible to all people.  

Also, this is not only about controlling influence.  It is also about providing access to high quality information on candidates.  Public financing usually provides for centralized sources of information decimination such as web sites, debates and forums.  This tends to cut down on sound bite, bumper sticker campaigning.  In a common public forum, candidates are forced to compete on ideas more than name recognition.  

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 20:11:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One more thing... (0.00 / 0)

if you want to learn more about public financing, you should check out Johns web site: www.truecourageaction.net.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:21:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]