Public financing of campaigns is the only way to really clean up Washington. John Kerry, now is the time to reintroduce the CLEAN MONEY, CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT, S.918. Kerry introduced this legislation in 1997, joined by colleagues Wellstone, Glenn, Biden and Leahy.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105dhx7X8:e904:From tpmmuckraker today...
Dem Reforms Give Lobbyists Lemons, They Make Lemonade
By Paul Kiel - January 4, 2007, 11:13 AM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002273.phpTwo well-known lobbyists, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, said that on the cocktail and fundraising circuits,
lobbyists already have been abuzz with new ideas about how to sidestep as-yet-unpassed rules.One said that a few colleagues have raised the possibility of terminating their lobbying registrations and moving into roles within their firms that are officially classified as non-lobbying, to avoid travel or gift bans if they apply only to registered lobbyists.....
And how about getting around new limits on Members using corporate jets? The Democratic lobbyist said he’d heard about lobbyists trying to get state party committees to charter corporate flights for Members.
<>
Several lobbyists said that fundraising events, too, will be at a premium, especially if Congress does not enact any campaign finance reforms geared toward lobbyists.“I am going to be embraced and hugged and kissed as long as I’m giving them a check” for their campaign, said one lobbyist.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:1:./temp/~r105tYH3kT:e17000:Kerry statement...
THE CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Fourth of July will occur in a little over 2 weeks. That is the date by which the President challenged the Congress to act on campaign finance reform in this first session of the 105th Congress. I regret I must announce the obvious: not only has neither house of the Congress addressed this issue in serious floor debate and legislative action; there is virtually no prospect that either house will do so by the time we leave for the July 4 recess. Nor is it clear when or if the 105th Congress will address this issue.
The Fourth of July has other implications, of course, Mr. President--and some of these, too, are related to campaign finance reform. This is a peculiarly American holiday, when Americans throughout the Nation take time out to gather in parks and back yards, at barbecues and picnics and family reunions and community parades, to celebrate our democracy, our freedom.
But I think there would be widespread agreement, as we do this in 1997, that there is an unease across the Nation about the political process. The American people are concerned. Their concern is not primarily about who their elected officials are. Their frustration, cynicism, and anger run deep and broad--directed, as most of us realize, at the entire political system.
Americans believe that their Government has been hijacked by special interests, that the political system responds to the needs of wealthy special interests, not the interests of ordinary, hard-working citizens. They sense, in many ways, that the Congress is not necessarily `the people's house.'
We see evidence of this in the feeling of powerlessness described by many Americans, and in the great gulf that grows wider between the American people and their elected officials. You can see it expressed frequently in town meetings and in various polls. The people feel that Congress all too often fails to represent the real concerns of real Americans, and they sense that they are being left out.
The result is that more and more Americans are checking out of the system. If their democracy isn't going to respond to their concerns, then they ask themselves why they should respond to the request that they participate meaningfully in the political process. The reason for the disconnect is very simple, Mr. President. The amount of money in politics--money given to office seekers to campaign for office--disenfranchises the average person who knows that he or she can never hope to have the same kind of access as that money achieves for those who give it.
Special interest money is moving and dictating and governing the agenda of American politics, and most Americans understand that.
A few findings from a bipartisan poll tell the story: 49 percent of registered voters believe that lobbyists and special interests control the Federal Government; 92 percent of registered voters believe that special interest contributions affect the votes of Members of Congress; and 88 percent believe that people who make large campaign contributions get special favors from politicians.
The evidence of public discontent could hardly be more compelling, yet the Congress drifts on, with no apparent sense of urgency in trying to respond to that discontent. We all understand there are differences on each side of the aisle about the best way to address the problem, but I do not see how anyone can say in good conscience that there is a bona fide effort under way involving the leadership of both parties in the U.S. Congress to even try to work out those differences.
If we want to regain the respect and confidence of the American people and if we want to reconnect to them and reconnect them to our democracy, we have to get the special interest money out of politics. As my friend Ross Perot says, `It's just that simple.'
The American people, however, are skeptical about either our willingness or ability to do that, and it doesn't help that the
105th Congress has yet to take up campaign finance reform. It doesn't help that the President and the Speaker of the House shook hands in a very public way 2 years ago and promised to do something about campaign finance, and nothing has transpired between then and now to fulfill that commitment, and from the perspective of the ordinary citizen who wants to see the special interest money removed from politics, it really looks like a conspiracy of inaction.
Those who profit from the current system --special interests who know how to play the game, and politicians who know how to play the game--seem to be shutting down any prospect of real change.
Mr. President, I know why people feel that way. I have been working on campaign finance reform since I came to the Senate. I have worked for years with my colleagues Joe Biden and Robert Byrd and others, and with former Senators such as George Mitchell, David Boren, and Bill Bradley--searching for the right equation to bring about change. Although from my arrival in the Senate I have advocated sweeping overhaul of the system, in recent times I have been a strong supporter of the proposal advanced by John McCain and Russ Feingold, even though it is incremental in design, because they succeeded in assembling a package of reforms that bridged the party divide that so often has been permitted to poison this debate and prevent meaningful action--and because I believe so fervently that we must succeed to whatever extent it is possible in moving toward what should be our objective.
Throughout these years of activity--the 12 years of my service as a Senator--my goal has always been the same, to get special interest influence and special interest access out of politics.Mr. President, we come to the floor this afternoon on an auspicious day--or, perhaps more accurately, an inauspicious day. In any event it is a red-letter day for America. It was the day 25 years ago that was the beginning of two very difficult years in American history. It was 25 years ago today that the famous burglary at the Watergate complex overlooking the Potomac in Washington, DC, took place, followed by coverup activities that reached into the Oval Office and resulted in the resignation in disgrace of an American President.
During the investigation of the illegal activities, there were multiple revelations of huge amounts of cash moving in brown paper bags and leather briefcases. The public revulsion triggered real reform, although that reform, sadly, was directed primarily toward only the Presidential election financing system. But even that spirit of reform, and the significant alterations of the system to which it led, has been broken by those who want to trample it with the exploitation of every loophole possible in the campaign finance system.
It is unfortunately fitting, then, Mr. President, that we return our attention on this day to that nemesis of the democratic process, the corrosive effect of money in politics.
This time, 25 years later, it is the no-holds-barred pursuit of quite stunning amounts of money by both parties in the 1996 Presidential and congressional elections that captures the attention and the condemnation of the American people--and the allegations that many of those who gave large sums to one or the other party, or one candidate or another, expected favors in return, ranging from the trivial to the significant.
The American people are not stupid. They know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. They believe--with considerable justification--that the scores of millions of dollars that flow from well-to-do individuals and special interest organizations usually are not donated out of absolute disinterested patriotism, admiration for the candidates, and support for our electoral system.They watch repeatedly as public policy decisions made by the Congress and the Executive Branch appear to be influenced by those who have made the contributions. They conclude--again, I fear, with considerable good reason--that either those contributions directly affected the decision-making process, or, at the very least, purchased for those contributors a greater degree of access to the elected officials who make the decisions, so that the contributors can more effectively and persuasively make their case.
During this past election, 1996, not only in congressional races but also, distressingly, in the Presidential campaign--and it is especially distressing because many of us thought the Watergate reform legislation of 1974 had suitably repaired the system of presidential campaign finance--we saw a flood of special interest money the likes of which have never previously been seen here or anywhere.
Every day during the past year, it has been impossible to open a newspaper or turn on a television without being confronted by yet another new revelation about an alleged campaign finance irregularity or abuse--or a defense of the actions at which the charges are leveled.
And, I must say, the defenses are generally pretty lame. Those against whom the allegations are leveled may be able to find protection in the letter of the law, but they are unsuccessful in avoiding the opprobrium of the American people and consequent cynicism about our government system.
I am one who believes we absolutely must do something to reverse the trend if we are to save our precious democratic system. And I also have concluded that the forces arrayed against the kind of partial public financing approaches we previously have pushed are so strong that we must find a new approach behind which it will be possible to develop such strong consensus support across the nation that the Congress will be unable to resist it.
To the extent competent polling and other public opinion assessment techniques can make a reliable determination, the evidence is persuasive that, while the American people are willing to embrace radical change of campaign financing--to take all special interest money and heave it over the side and shoulder all reasonable campaign costs--they have only passing interest and precious little enthusiasm for half-way measures. Their judgment appears to be that it would be a waste of effort and tax dollars to invest public resources in a system that retains any significant degree of special interest funding. They see such an approach as playing them for chumps--while the influence of special interests would remain as strong as it currently is.
What does seem to capture the attention and imagination--and support--of a significant majority of Americans is sweeping reform of campaign finance that removes all special interest money from the system. This is not a notion dreamed up here in Washington--either here on Capitol Hill or in an organization's office downtown. Activities to implement such an approach to campaign finance reform have been underway in a number of States, including my own State of Massachusetts. Maine voters took the boldest step, approving such a concept for State elections. Now Vermont has followed suit with a provision applying to the Governor's office, and Governor Howard Dean is poised to sign the proposal into law. Other State-level efforts are in various stages of advancement.
Paul Wellstone and John Glenn came early-on to the same conclusion to which I came--that we want to champion such an approach at the federal level. And we have been joined by Joe Biden and Pat Leahy, and other Senators are studying the idea carefully and we hope and trust we will be joined by some of them in the near future.
We come to the floor today to introduce the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, a bill that, as its most important feature, takes all special interest money out of Federal elections. This initiative will offer a set amount of funding, based on a State's voting-age population, to each candidate who agrees to foreswear private contributions. It not only removes all special interest money from the system, but also removes the necessity for candidates to spend a huge amount of time fundraising and to pour massive amounts of the money they do raise into further fundraising efforts.In addition, this legislation will shut down the so-called soft money, or unregulated money, loopholes that have permitted massive amounts of special interest money to enter the electoral process around even those restrictions that now exist.This process takes a major step forward today with the introduction of this legislation. Comparable efforts are underway in the House of Representatives, and I understand a similar bill will be introduced there in coming weeks.
We believe the people are, once again, ahead of Washington--and, once again, ahead of the politicians. And we believe that ultimately this or a derivative approach is the only way effectively to restore people's confidence that, in America, anybody truly can run, and win--not just those who have access to wealth or who are wealthy themselves.
This is a bill to restore our own democracy and preserve what we think is the heart of our precious system. We hope and believe that--with a strong assist from their constituents--increasing numbers of our colleagues, over time, will come to recognize this and support the bill.
This will not be a rapidly completed process, Mr. President. We introduce this bill with the knowledge that it would not attract more than perhaps a quarter of the votes in the Senate today. This will be a journey, a journey of mobilizing the American people to require their elected representatives to take needed action. Our bill will be the objective, and it also will be the rallying point. And with the commitment of the organizations and individuals who advocate this approach, a movement will develop which cannot be stopped. Just as in Maine and now in Vermont, the support will grow to critical mass and these reforms will succeed.
I look forward to walking this road with all who support this approach--both my colleagues in the Senate and friends outside the Senate.
We who introduce this bill are committed to fundamentally changing our electoral system, and returning control of our elected officials and their agenda to the people after wresting it back from the special interests.I believe we will succeed, and can look back on this day--the 25th anniversary of a lamentable event in American history--as an important beginning point in that endeavor.
I want to commend those colleagues who join in introducing this legislation today--Senators Wellstone, Glenn, Biden, and Leahy. I particularly want to compliment Senator Wellstone's capable staff, especially Brian Ahlberg, who have invested countless hours in the effort that is so essential but often unnoticed, of transforming complex policy objectives into legislative language, working hand-in-hand with Senate Legislative Counsel staff and representatives of organizations which have been developing this idea at the State level. My staff has greatly appreciated their contributions to this effort and enjoyed working with them, as I have enjoyed the cooperative efforts with Senator Wellstone and my other colleagues.
Mr. President, before I yield to Senator Wellstone and then, in turn, to other Senators who may wish to make remarks about this legislation, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, followed by a summary of the bill and a chart depicting the qualifying contribution requirement and the `Clean Money' allocation and spending limit for a general election that would apply to a candidate participating in the `Clean Money, Clean Election' system in each State.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: (Click link above to the bill)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
