The first week of September, traditionally, signaled the start of the campaign season. I say traditionally, which is the polite way of noting something that has become obsolete. Presidential campaigning has become a sport for all seasons and in Indianapolis a few weeks ago, Republican hopefuls gathered for a beauty contest that is three years premature.
The reason politicians put themselves, and us, through all this michigas is to raise money. It takes a powerful amount of money to buy a seat in Congress these days, so politicians spend years soliciting cash, much of it from folks they ought not to talk to, like folks with links to organized crime, Indonesian banking families or in the case of Al Gore – Buddhists. There’s a positive side here. All this chicanery gives Senator Thompson a way to fill his days until it’s time for him to run for re-election, thereby spending the cash he’s managed to squeeze from his sources.
Every few years, our solons in Washington make a half-hearted attempt at campaign finance reform, but then the money and the junkets start pouring in from the political action committees and pretty soon they’ve decided they’d rather be playing golf in Florida after all. The long and short of it is – if you want campaign finance reform, it’s not going to come from Washington, DC anytime soon.
A few weeks ago, I was in Montpelier, Vermont, where the capitol building sits on State Street as plain and unpretentious as a high school. In that building last June, the Vermont legislature passed a campaign finance law, that to my knowledge, is the toughest in the country. There were many fine citizens and organizations working very hard to pass the Vermont law, but Dave Rapaport at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group gave me the information on it, so he gets the mention.
According to the new law in Vermont, candidates for the governor’s office cannot spend more than $300,000 in the primary and general elections combined – $100,000 for lieutenant governor and $45,000 for other statewide offices. Lower amounts of spending are allowed for legislative offices. Here’s a nice touch – incumbents can only spend 85 percent of the limit for statewide races, 90 percent for legislative and local races. That’s right: challengers can outspend incumbents.
Not only are candidates limited in the amount of money they can take, individuals and political action committees are limited in the amount of money they can give. The limit on contributions applies to parties and PACs as well, so there’s no loophole for “soft money.” No more anonymous ads in Vermont. Any ad that expressly or implicitly advocates the success or defeat of a candidate must contain the name and address of the person who paid for it.
The Vermont law not only restricts bad behavior, it encourages good behavior. Starting in the year 2000, candidates who raise money in small amounts from a large number of donors will receive additional money from a state fund set up for that purpose. When I look at it all written down on a few sheets of paper, I’m amazed at how simple it all is. And I suddenly understand why progress has been so slow on this at the federal level. It’s because those bums just don’t want to do the right thing.
A Light at the End of the Tunnel
The first week of September, traditionally, signaled the start of the campaign season. I say traditionally, which is the polite way of noting something that has become obsolete. Presidential campaigning has become a sport for all seasons and in Indianapolis a few weeks ago, Republican hopefuls gathered for a beauty contest that is three years premature.
The reason politicians put themselves, and us, through all this michigas is to raise money. It takes a powerful amount of money to buy a seat in Congress these days, so politicians spend years soliciting cash, much of it from folks they ought not to talk to, like folks with links to organized crime, Indonesian banking families or in the case of Al Gore – Buddhists. There’s a positive side here. All this chicanery gives Senator Thompson a way to fill his days until it’s time for him to run for re-election, thereby spending the cash he’s managed to squeeze from his sources.
Every few years, our solons in Washington make a half-hearted attempt at campaign finance reform, but then the money and the junkets start pouring in from the political action committees and pretty soon they’ve decided they’d rather be playing golf in Florida after all. The long and short of it is – if you want campaign finance reform, it’s not going to come from Washington, DC anytime soon.
A few weeks ago, I was in Montpelier, Vermont, where the capitol building sits on State Street as plain and unpretentious as a high school. In that building last June, the Vermont legislature passed a campaign finance law, that to my knowledge, is the toughest in the country. There were many fine citizens and organizations working very hard to pass the Vermont law, but Dave Rapaport at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group gave me the information on it, so he gets the mention.
According to the new law in Vermont, candidates for the governor’s office cannot spend more than $300,000 in the primary and general elections combined – $100,000 for lieutenant governor and $45,000 for other statewide offices. Lower amounts of spending are allowed for legislative offices. Here’s a nice touch – incumbents can only spend 85 percent of the limit for statewide races, 90 percent for legislative and local races. That’s right: challengers can outspend incumbents.
Not only are candidates limited in the amount of money they can take, individuals and political action committees are limited in the amount of money they can give. The limit on contributions applies to parties and PACs as well, so there’s no loophole for “soft money.” No more anonymous ads in Vermont. Any ad that expressly or implicitly advocates the success or defeat of a candidate must contain the name and address of the person who paid for it.
The Vermont law not only restricts bad behavior, it encourages good behavior. Starting in the year 2000, candidates who raise money in small amounts from a large number of donors will receive additional money from a state fund set up for that purpose. When I look at it all written down on a few sheets of paper, I’m amazed at how simple it all is. And I suddenly understand why progress has been so slow on this at the federal level. It’s because those bums just don’t want to do the right thing.