opinion, Volume 9 number 8, August 2007 Correcting Corruption: Public Financing of Elections Can Restore (some of) the Legislature’s Credibility by Rich Seifert Running for political office requires many things from a candidate, assuming one is serious. It takes courage, confidence, reasonably good speaking talent, and willing family and friends. It also helps to be rich. If you’re not rich and can’t afford to spend your own money, you need financial backing. Money is always important and a candidate has to have help. This is the way it works in Alaska and almost everywhere else in the United States. In Alaska, much of the financial backing comes from special interests because people don’t pay taxes and don’t give money to politicians. Have you ever donated to a political candidate? I have. I think it’s the best expression of support. Most people however, would never do so. Just ask them. So, we get politicians who are needy, receiving funds from oil companies, unions, and big commercial interests—not that private or special interest political action is all bad. They have the right to have their interests represented—but not more than we do. It should be our legislature, beholden to the Constitution and citizens’ interests. As the recent satirical Alaska video on YouTube, Buy Back Alaska,* so aptly mocks, we should be buying back our legislature. Money matters. It should be our money. Others have come up with a pretty darn good idea about how to control the undue influence of corrupt money in legislatures. It is a very sound plan called public financing. You may have noticed one small aspect of it on your IRS tax form. The little place where you can check to give one dollar of your taxes to the Presidential election fund is just such an idea. That example is a bit inadequate, but it is a start, and it’s been around for a while. Another great idea is the recent working example from the state of Arizona. Arizona set up a financing system for legislators in which every candidate got $23,389, which was based on a sharing formula but was also $6,000 more than the average candidate spent in 1998. So candidates actually spent more on their campaigns in Arizona than before the public financing. Maine also has public financing but their financing scheme was a bit different. Both states experienced an increase in voter turnout, but it was only slight. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) review of the experience** in the states of Arizona and Maine noted that many young voters didn’t even know that the new financing scheme had been created. Sad, but true. There could hardly be better circumstances than the present scandal to put this idea forward for Alaska. The corruption in the legislature presents the prime reason. Public financing offers a set of very positive cures that can help. Here is a rather eloquent endorsement of the public financing concept, from the Brennan Center website:
The GAO had this to say:
Based on its research, GAO concluded that it was too soon to determine the extent to which the programs met the five goals or to draw causal links to changes that resulted from the public financing programs in the two states. One outcome that was conclusive was that the number of candidates who chose to use public financing for their campaigns increased significantly from 2000 to 2002. In the 2000 primary and general elections, one of every three candidates in Maine and one of every four candidates in Arizona participated in the program. In 2002, 50% or more of the candidates in both states participated. After the 2000 general elections, 33% of Maine’s elected legislators and 18% of Arizona’s elected legislators had run with public funds. Those numbers increased after the 2002 general elections when 59% and 36% of Maine’s and Arizona’s elected legislators, respectively, used the pubic financing program. (www.gao.gov) Are we ripe for public financing of elections to be raised in Alaska? It’s appropriate, clean, and in my opinion, far superior to the present system. An initiative could do it. Electing candidates who can create it would do it. But nothing will do it like a public awareness grassroots effort. Get the word out. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group (www.akpirg.org) is interested, Common Cause (www.commoncause.org) promotes it, and it is already working in two states. It can work here. It opens up amazing possibilities when cynical despair is all around us. Here is a positive choice we can make. We should demand it of ourselves. Alaska’s future is worth it, and our government is worth it. * www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e1DDGSD4DM ** GAO-03-453 Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates. Available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d03453.pdf. See also Alaskans for Clean Elections, at www.alaskansforcleanelections.org. Here’s how they describe themselves on their website: “a statewide grassroots group of dedicated Alaskans. We believe changing how Alaska's elections are financed will bring political power back into the hands of Alaskans and positively enhance our democracy.” | ||
 | | |
