Would Marty's campaign finance bill actually do anything?

Seems like a good start (0.00 / 0)

While I haven't ready Marty's Clean Elections Act yet, it seems like he's taking the advice that Lawrence Lessig proposed in his latest article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

While we work to get a constitutional amendment, whether enacted legislatively or via a convention, we need to get campaign finance reform passed in the state and federal legislatures. So, while I don't think that this act would do nothing, I do think that it's a decent state-specific start to solving a much bigger, nation-wide problem.

---

by: jesseross @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 10:09:15 AM CST

This is a starting point, and there's a lot.... (0.00 / 0)

.....of good in the proposal. I'm not sure there are any easy answers to "keeping that warping, direct corporate influence out of our politics in the first place". And I would not be afraid if there's a possibility that the legislation gets struck down by the courts, it's a line drawn in the sand, a direct challenge that keeps the issue out in the open. We have to start somewhere.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:30:07 PM CST

clean elecitons laws in other states (0.00 / 0)

A couple other states have passed clean elections laws, Arizona and Maine if I'm not mistaken. It might be more than two. The point is Marty's bill seems modeled on what has already been done elsewhere, so there's a point of comparison and we don't have to just speculate.

---

by: ericf @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 16:23:32 PM CST

Why John Marty's legislation is a good thing (4.00 / 1)

Joe is suspicious that this provision of
John Marty's legislation will not work:

Provide public financing to those campaigns to match additional spending by opponents and to match independent expenditures against them.

To think it through, imagine the dynamic involved. Corporation or Moneybags donor has to decide how much cash they will shower upon their favorite Republican lackey. In the absence of John Marty's legislation, the legally-permissible-sky is the limit. With John Marty's legislation, the mental dynamic is, "Wait a minute, the more I give to my lackey, the more her competitor receives from the system. So, what's the point of writing huge checks?"

Thus, that investment in public matching funds becomes a brake on the overall level of campaign expenditure.

Joel Clemmer

---

by: joel @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 17:17:24 PM CST

Thanks for the invitation to respond (4.00 / 2)

Joe:

Thanks for the encouragement to respond.  

I think you are misunderstanding what my legislation is trying to accomplish.  Before I clarify that, some general comments:

1.  I agree that we should be taking corporate money out of politics.  In fact, for two decades, I have been working to take all of the special interest money, not just corporate money, out of politics.  The Citizens United ruling is, like Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal"), one of the most tragic decisions for those who care about democracy.  Like Plessy, it will have to be overturned, or we need a constitutional amendment to do so.

Justice Stevens got it right in his dissent:  "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant...Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."  Corporations are not people, and they have been given rights which have allowed them to trample on the rights of people.  

2.  My feelings about this issue run deep.  In fact, I am the only DFL gubernatorial candidate that does not accept any PAC or Lobbyist contributions.   This is not to make a point, but because you cannot speak truth to power when you are taking money from that power.  If you take contributions from the Insurance industry or the Pharmaceutical lobby, you will never be able to fully challenge them.   That's why I have been the one candidate who has consistently stood up to them with the single-payer Minnesota Health Plan

3.  My "Revolving Door" legislation passed out of committee today (Friday) and is headed for the Senate floor.  I have been pushing it for more than a decade, but this year it has picked up some additional support, and I hope that we can pass it.

4.  My "Right to Know" disclosure legislation is another stand-alone bill that would close loopholes in Minnesota's financial disclosure laws covering public officials and lobbyists.  For example, under current law, any lobbyist or interest group could pay a legislator an unlimited amount of money for "consulting" and there is no way that the public could even be aware of the financial relationship!  Likewise, about 60% of lobbyist campaign contributions are never disclosed.  This legislation would expose these transactions so that the public is at least aware of the conflict of interest.  

Now, a brief explanation of my Clean Money campaign finance reform proposal:

My legislation, which has been introduced for over a decade now, is designed to take all of the big money out of politics in a way that fits within the framework that the Court spelled out in the Buckley v Valeo case.  I modified the bill in a way that responds to the recent Citizens United ruling.

Would my proposal be challenged in court?  Yes.  Virtually all major campaign finance reform legislation is challenged.  I think we have a reasonable chance of winning this.  My legislation begins with some legislative findings that quote directly from the Buckley decision, where the court talks about the purpose of the first amendment being, "to secure the widest dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources," and "to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."  The Buckley court was very articulate about the purpose of the first amendment, but they got it backwards in their understanding of the impact of private money on the first amendment.  

Over the years, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of campaign finance legislation making the case for the changes proposed, yet few campaign finance bills have taken the time to carefully do this. My legislation makes a detailed case for this reform.

As you point out, the state cannot change the court ruling.  I oppose the very idea of giving corporations the rights that our constitution gives to people, and strongly oppose this decision.  I would overturn it legislatively, if that were possible.  But it is not.  Consequently,  my proposal attempts to work within the confines of the decision.

Among the main provisions of my legislation (the full proposal will be online in a week or two):

Provide significant public financing for campaigns that comply with the contribution and spending limits (public funding for 65% of the limit) with small, $100 or less contributions from individuals allowed, and the PCR program doubled to $100/person.

Provide public financing to those campaigns to match additional spending by opponents and to match independent expenditures against them.

Ban PAC contributions for the campaigns that agree to the limits.

Ban Lobbyist contributions for those campaigns.

Ban all large contributions for those campaigns.

Now to the point of misunderstanding of what this legislation would accomplish:  You stated, "trying to "provide matching funds" to balance out corporate money is not the answer. Keeping that warping, direct corporate influence out of our politics in the first place is."   I agree.  But if the availability of matching funds succeeds in keeping the corporate money out, we accomplish the same thing.  Here's how it works:

This legislation would still enable PACs or others (now including corporations) to continue to fund all of the "political speech" that they want, but it would take away the incentive for them to try to buy an election.   In other words, if a PAC or corporation believes that a legislator has an outrageous position on an issue, it could spend as much as it wants on ads to inform the public of that position.   However, because this legislation would enable that candidate to respond, there would be no incentive to spend for the purpose of giving their candidate a funding advantage, because there wouldn't be an advantage.  

In fact, the matching fund available would go up to ten times the candidate's spending limit.  So, in a state senate campaign, with a spending limit of $60,000, a corporation "investing" in defeating that candidate could spend $500,000 on independent expenditures in the race, and their target would receive a $500,000 subsidy.   They would still have the right that the court gave them to spend the money, but most would decide they weren't as interested in using their "free speech" rights to raise some perspective, if it doesn't give their candidate a financial advantage.    

The net impact is that few corporations or interest groups would make the expenditures, only those who want to raise an issue that they don't think will otherwise be raised in the campaign.  The state would not be spending money in response, because few interest groups would spend the money.

If you doubt whether this works, check back on the provision that I authored in the late 1980s that frees a candidate from the spending limit if the opposing candidate does not agree to the limit.  Before that provision took effect, candidates in any heavily contested legislative race would reject the public money and skip the spending limit.  After that provision, virtually 100% of legislative candidates agreed to abide by the limits.

This is lengthy, but you asked for an "at length" discussion.  

It may be a bit wonkish-sounding, but it is critically important.   It's about the future of our democracy.

Our nation is, according to the words of Abraham Lincoln, to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.  This ruling moves us ever closer to government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Special interest money has gained an ever more powerful grip on our elections and our political process, and this ruling will make the problem even worse.   It is time to take back our democracy from corporate money and big interests. 

Warm regards,

John Marty

---

by: johnmarty @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 23:37:22 PM CST

thanks for the wonkishness (0.00 / 0)

Wonkishness might not work for a TV ad --- OK, definitely doesn't work in a TV ad --- but if a forum for political junkies can't have some wonkishness, a lot of us might as well stop posting.

Matching corporate spending might work as well as amending the Constitution or trying to find legislation that conforms to the Citizens United decision, especially since the court and conservatives appear to intend further overturning of campaign finance restrictions. My biggest fear is that corporations can not only buy a lot of air time, but can buy so much that they can insist commercial media refuse opponents' ads.

I also fear we won't be able to get reforms through until potential problems become real. Of course, then there might not be enough elected officials willing and able to oppose corporate money to do anything about it.

May all our fears prove false.

---

by: ericf @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 00:35:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Many thanks for the in-depth response, Sen. Marty (0.00 / 0)

I hope you have time to post this as a diary so we can put a spotlight on it and discuss it in considerable depth.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 12:27:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]