[Vision2020] Give Small Political Donors a Voice

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=3f0d0918/c874980e&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad=Sessions_120x60_Aug20_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthesessions>

------------------------------
August 22, 2012
Give Small Political Donors a Voice

The Congressional race between two incumbent Democrats in the redrawn 30th
District in California is one of the most expensive in the country, but it
is hardly unusual in reflecting the influence of big donors. Howard Berman
has raised $3.5 million, while his opponent, Brad Sherman, raised $2.7
million. For both candidates, only 1 percent of their money came from
donations under $200.

They both have relied heavily on political action
committees<http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=CA30&cycle=2012>,
and among their biggest givers have been employees of cable television
companies, entertainment conglomerates, financial institutions and law
firms. Mr. Berman has a laughably “independent” “super PAC” — the Committee
to Elect an Effective Valley
Congressman<http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/committee/committee-to-elect-an-effective-valley-congressman/C00507228/>—
that has spent nearly $600,000 on his behalf, much of it coming in
chunks
of as much as $100,000 from financial executives, unions and entertainment
companies. In addition, Mr. Sherman lent his own campaign $700,000.

That fits a typical and corrupting pattern that gives the wealthiest
interests outsize influence in electing candidates to Congress, making
lawmakers obligated to them instead of ordinary voters of modest means. In
2008, of donations to House candidates, only 8 percent were less than $200;
small donations accounted for 14 percent to Senate candidates. A vast
majority of donors earn $100,000 or more, leaving most of the public out of
the conversation and away from the attention of political candidates.

For many voters, it seems pointless to donate $25 when the real game is
being played at a much higher level. When a hard-right “super PAC” like
Club for Growth can spend nearly $6 million to help a single Tea Party
candidate in Texas — Ted Cruz — win his Senate primary, why bother with
pocket change? (Other conservative “super PACs” threw in $2 million or so
on his behalf.)

On Wednesday, two groups with outspoken records in favor of campaign
finance reform proposed a
plan<http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7b91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F%7d&DE=%7b1DB1B703-A215-48DA-855B-B197689AF57E%7d>that
could restore a voice to ordinary citizens. Based on the very
successful New York City campaign finance system, the plan would match
contributions of $250 or less at a 5-to-1 rate with public funds. If
someone gave $100 to a candidate, the program would add another $500 in
public funds, magnifying the importance of the small donation.

The plan — proposed by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University School of Law and Democracy 21, a campaign finance watchdog
group — would be voluntary, but participating candidates would have to
accept a $1,250 limit on all contributions, half the current level of
$2,500. There would be a ceiling on public matches to candidates and a
$50,000 limit on the amount a candidate could contribute to the campaign
but no limit on spending.

The two groups estimated that such a system would cost about $700 million a
year. But consider the benefits New York City has
enjoyed<http://www.nyccfb.info/PDF/press/WhyPublicFinancing.pdf?sm=press_21f>from
its program: more than half the donors to city candidates in 2009 were
first-time givers, and more than 80 percent of those contributions were
$175 or less. The percentage of residents contributing to a city campaign
was more than three times higher than in New York State, and they were far
more diverse (a good reason the state needs a similar
system<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/albany-can-kick-the-money-habit.html>).


Members of Congress will undoubtedly say the federal government can’t
afford such a program, but they are rarely so hesitant about doing the
bidding of their biggest donors. It’s time they started paying attention to
people with smaller wallets and more urgent needs.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120823/51accae9/attachment.html>