September 8, 2003
When 72 percent of eligible voters in California decided to stay home during the last statewide election, it affirmed the Apathetic Party as the state’s largest political affiliation. I have recently spoken with a number of young people who possess no interest in participating in the October 7 recall election. Their primary reason for embracing voter apathy is the belief that voting is irrelevant. The argument is not without merit. The influence of big money in politics remains pervasive. In the 2002 elections, politicians, political parties, and special interest spent approximately $1 billion in soft money contributions, a 72 percent increase over the previous mid-term elections. Campaign spending grows while voter participation declines.
Though California is widely regarded as the bellwether state when it comes to political wedge issues, it is Arizona and Maine, however, that have blazed the trail for authentic campaign finance reform.
Initiated in 2000, Arizona and Maine have instituted real campaign reform that is cutting the contribution umbilical cord between candidates and special interest. Known as “clean elections,” the voluntary public financing system simply requires: * Collect a set number of small contributions.
* Agree to voluntary spending limits.
* Do not accept campaign contributions from any private source.
* No campaign contributions from the candidate’s own pocket.
By complying with these requirements, candidates receive full public funding for
their primary and general election campaigns.
In Arizona, voters elected a bipartisan mix of candidates who ran clean elections, including the Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer; 45% of state representatives also ran and won without taking any special interest money under the clean election guidelines. Competition for statewide office in Arizona has increased 64% in 4 years, as well as an upsurge in the participation of women and people of color seeking elected office. In Maine, most of those who are serving in the House and Senate this year were elected without taking any campaign money from corporate special interests. Only 15% of legislative races were uncontested in 2002.
After watching California’s gubernatorial debate last week I found it interesting the lead story for many of the media outlets was not how the 5 candidates articulated their vision for running the worlds 5th largest economy, rather it was the criticism of Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante for the large sum of money his campaign received from the Native American gaming community.
There is something undeniably wrong with a candidate receiving $1.5 million dollars from a single source, as did Bustamante. Forgive my cynicism, but it is difficult to imagine a Governor Bustamante not being severely compromised by this contribution.
Whether it is California Governor Gray Davis’ well documented slash and burn fundraising style, the gargantuan amounts of money raised by President Bush, sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom, or Bustamante receiving a $1.5 million windfall, as former Texas Senator Phil Gramm stated, money remains the “mother’s milk” of politics.
Democrats and Republicans have worked around the clock to sidestep the modest changes called for in the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute recently wrote in the New York Times how both parties have created a variety of organizations to stay within the law, but manages to keep the contributions flowing. Part of the criticism surrounding Bustamante is the unique manner his campaign team utilized to ‘legally” accept the $1.5 million contribution.
Opponents of campaign finance reform love to point out that the issue does not poll high with the electorate. I doubt if we polled 100 farmers who is best qualified to watch the hen house that the fox would poll particularly high. Until now, it has been the fox that has initiated campaign finance reform. But I do believe that a campaign finance reform referendum spawned at the grassroots, which calls for voluntary participation will poll high. According to the Arizona Republic clean elections is supported by 67 percent of Arizonans.
The results from the California recall election are secondary to the democratic byproduct created in the aftermath. Will Californians reclaim their democracy through increased participation or will the Apathetic Party remain the status quo? Public campaign financing is a major step in removing the corruptive nature of politics, the undo policy influences of special interest, while simultaneously enhancing the number of people who believe their vote does indeed matter.