|
|
| (20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Background''': Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. But too often, big money has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence in our elections, and undermines our democracy. The reasons are many:
| + | http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Campaign_Finance_Reform |
| | | | |
| − | - The U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections, though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).
| + | Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately big money in politics has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this are many: |
| | | | |
| − | Greens reject these ruling and support amending the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
| + | - Though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections, |
| | | | |
| − | - Large, single-seat legislative districts increase the cost of elections by requiring large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general. | + | Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. |
| | | | |
| − | Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.
| + | - By their nature, elections and campaigns expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. In the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere. |
| | | | |
| − | - Elections by their nature are expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters, and in the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.
| + | It is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed. The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions. |
| | | | |
| − | Elections and campaigns do cost money, and it is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed. The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.
| + | Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. This would provide all voters with a baseline of information about all candidates running. |
| | | | |
| − | Greens support public financing by providing equal free time for all ballot qualified candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. Greens also support public financing where small donations tare matched with public funds at a multiple ratio - to increase the importance of small donations and the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. | + | Combined with this, Greens support public financing of campaigns and elections via a system where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors. |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Proposals''': Greens support
| |
| | | | |
| − | '''Constitutional Reform'''
| + | - Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general. |
| | | | |
| − | - Amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, (2010) McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976) | + | Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers. |
| | | | |
| − | Once these rulings are overturned, Greens support campaign spending limits combined with forms of public financing and other electoral reforms
| + | '''Proposals: The Green Party supports''' |
| | | | |
| − | - Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that free time be reserved on the public broadcast spectrum and be dedicated to candidates and political parties, as part of all public broadcast spectrum licenses
| + | '''Contribution and Spending Limits''' |
| | | | |
| | + | - Amend the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976). |
| | | | |
| − | Public financing can take the form of direct financial support, but also through equal time on the public-owned broadcast spectrum.
| + | - Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing. |
| | | | |
| − | Reform FEC law to provide free tv time for all presidential candidates on enough state ballots to
| + | '''Public Financing''' |
| | | | |
| − | - Free TV | + | - Establish various forms of public financing, including matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at greater than one-to-one multiple ratio. |
| − | - Low cost or free candidtes statements available to all ballot qualiied candidates | |
| | | | |
| − | Provide a common bas
| + | - Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures. |
| | | | |
| − | There is both the source of funding and the need for it.
| + | - Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates. |
| | | | |
| − | Greens increase public financing.
| + | - Create small donor committees that aggregate the voices of small donors. |
| | | | |
| − | Greens support constituationl amendment that do blank.
| + | - Require that free television and radio time be dedicated to candidates, elections debates and forums ,and political parties as part of all commercial public broadcast licenses. |
| | | | |
| − | Until then within the durrent structure, support these things.
| + | - Require that time on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels be dedicated to candidates, debates and forums for elections within the PEG area |
| | | | |
| − | Also reduce the need via electoral fre
| + | - Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits. |
| | | | |
| | + | - Overturn the ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds (from Proposition 73 in 1988) |
| | | | |
| | + | - Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice (donation does not come out of their taxes, but is separate and additional) |
| | | | |
| | + | '''Disclosure''' |
| | | | |
| | + | - Require prompt and full disclosure of all permissible contributions on Federal, State, and local government levels |
| | | | |
| − | television and other
| + | - Eliminate all 'dark money' in elections - i.e. legal donations that are not publicly disclosed, including by amending Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purposes, to un-equivocably define that such organization must operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and that no Federal agency, including the IRS, may interpret this to mean otherwise, including by redefining 'exclusively' as 'primarily', and that any such past interpretations be rendered invalid and void" going forward. |
| − | | |
| − | Small donors
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | The breakthroughs in small donor fundraising that have occurred in presidential campaigns demonstrate the potential that exists for greatly increasing the role of small contributions in federal elections by magnifying their importance with multiple matching funds. The future of campaign finance reform must include an effort to bolster the power of small donors by amplifying their political voice. Congress can do that by adopting a small donor empowerment program for federal elections.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Campaign finance reform''' - The role of big money Both reducing the need for money and changing its source.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Making matters worse. On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
| |
| − | In a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC, (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Public financing can take many forms but aims to accomplish two primary goals: 1)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Elected officials and city candidates should be able to campaign without the cloud of corruption that comes from over-dependence on money from outside interests and 2) Grassroots candidates with strong community ties should be able to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
| |
| − | | |
| − | On Federal level support contitutional reform.
| |
| − | This reality also impacts campaign finance reform. The size of districts affects the cost of running in them, and winner-take-all elections means have to get people who don't support you. A move to prop rep can is one of the most effective forms of campaign finance reform, because don't need a majority to win any representation. Instead different parts of society can win repreeatnion in proportion to their numbers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Campaign contributors are simply responding to high incumbent re-election rates, more than causing them. Most big donors seek to buy influence, not elections. Minor parties lose elections not because of inequity in campaign contributions, they lose because they are a minority viewpoint within a majoritarian system. In a general election, the underlying partisan views of a district's voters are far more decisive than campaign spending. "Demography is destiny..."because gerrymandered districts creates such a large majority of a particular viewpoint.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Money plays a larger role in primary elections where voters are not choosing between parties, and candidates with more money can distinguish themselves from the pack. Thus, campaign finance reform can be more effective in primary elections, as well as in single-seat state-wide elections and municipal at-large elections. The California Clean Money Campaign http://www.yesfairelections.org/ was formed in 2006 to redress the situation and to prevent undue influence of Big Money in California politics.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Public Financing
| |
| − | | |
| − | - Enact public matching funds/small donors. Overturn current ban in CA
| |
| − | | |
| − | Voters are increasingly concerned about political mega-donors in our elections, and many governments are considering new approaches to campaign financing. Unfortunately, one of the most promising reforms is currently prohibited in most California jurisdictions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Six charter cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Richmond) offer limited public funds to match small campaign donations. These laws amplify the voices of everyday Californians who donate small amounts and give candidates an alternative to relying on large donors.
| |
| − | Government By the People Act encourages more people to participate by giving small donors a $25 credit on their taxes.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Act increases the impact of small donations by creating a fund that will match those donations at least 6-to-1 if a candidate agrees to forego large contributions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms for filers to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice with donation that does not come out of their taxes and is optional
| |
| − | | |
| − | - Free television time to all ballot-qualified candidates
| |
| − | | |
| − | - Free television time to all ballot-qualified parties
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | To promote a more informed electorate and to decrease the role of money in politics, I've successfully promoted an substantial increase in coverage on CityTV of ballot qualified candidates since the mid 1990s. Candidate statements, interviews and forums are broadcast for a month before the election on CityTV, valued at $12,000 to $15,000 worth of coverage per candidate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Creates the Freedom from Influence Fund to match contributions of up to $150 to participating candidates 6-to-1 or more;
| |
| − | | |
| − | Provides a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions;
| |
| − | | |
| − | Provides enhanced matching funds in the final 60 days of a general election for candidates in high-cost races (because of an onslaught of outside spending, for example); and
| |
| − | | |
| − | Creates People PACs, or small donor committees, that aggregate the voices and power of ordinary citizens rather than wealthy donors (as traditional PACs tend to do).
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Financing of Elections
| |
| − | | |
| − | Public financing of elections and free media access to level the playing field for getting candidates' messages to voters.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Removing the Ban'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | offering public mathching funds and create some system in cities
| |
| − | | |
| − | But other jurisdictions cannot enact such laws today. Unlike charter cities, a provision of a 1988 initiative bans counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | How can we provide local options to address campaign finance?
| |
| − | | |
| − | SB 1107 (Allen/Hancock) would remove the ban on voluntary public campaign financing programs. Because the ban was first enacted by ballot initiative, the bill would be referred for voters’ approval.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | - Combine voluntary spending limits with public financing opportunities
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | to reduce money's corrupting influence on our political system.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Amend the Constitution to the overturn of Citizens United v. FEC, (2010) McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976)Our campaign seeks to overturn the Citizens United decision. We want to pass an amendment to our Constitution declaring that corporations are not people, money is not speech, and our elections are not for sale. To do so, we’re going state-by-state, city-by-city to build the support its going to take to win. We’ve already helped get 16 states and nearly 600 cities, counties and towns to formally tell Congress that the Constitution must be amended. Getting this across the finish line won’t be easy, but it’s what’s necessary to reclaim our democracy.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Disclosure
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | http://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment
| |
| − | | |
| − | • AB 700 (Gomez-Levine), California DISCLOSE Act: Make political ads show who REALLY pays for them! Sign petition!
| |
| − | • SB 1107 (Allen): Start on the road to public financing of campaigns! Sign SB 1107 petition!
| |
| − | • SB 254 (Allen-Leno), Overturn Citizens United Act: Let us vote to urge a constitutional amendment! Sign SB 254 petition!
| |
| − | • AB 1200 (Gordon): Report lobbying on billions in state contracts! Sign AB 1200 petition!
| |
| − | • AB 1828 (Dodd): Close conflict of interest loopholes at the powerful Board of Equalization! Sign AB 1828 petition!
| |
| − | • AB 2523 (Mullin): Require cities and counties to have campaign contribution limits!
| |
| − | • SB 976 (Vidak): Stop legislators from taking rich lobbying jobs after quitting early! Sign SB 976 petition!
| |
| − | • SB 1349 (Hertzberg): Increase transparency with a new Cal-Access campaign disclosure website!
| |
| − | | |
| − | incentives and matching funds for small contributions — systems that are already in place in some cities and counties.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Support constitutio
| |
| − | | |
| − | reverse decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon; let's rein in runaway political spending and protect everyone's right to be heard.
| |
| − | Break the power of big money with small donor contributions and public funds.
| |
| − | Implement the "People's Pledge" to keep shadowy front groups and their secret donors out of our elections.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Toughen disclosure laws; let voters know who's trying to buy elections.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Expose corporate power in government.
| |
| − | Give shareholders control of corporate political spending.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | After the Supreme Court removed barriers to corporate political spending in the 2010 Citizens United case, members of Congress introduced the DISCLOSE Act to help citizens keep track of who is spending money to influence our votes and elected officials. While donations made directly to candidates and parties generally are reported already, some "independent" groups are pumping millions of dollars from secret donors into TV ads supporting some candidates and opposing others. DISCLOSE would require reporting of contributions exceeding $10,000 to those groups and would apply equally to corporate and labor union spending.
| |
| − | | |
| − | DISCLOSE passed the House in 2010 but was stalled by a filibuster in the Senate, where it received 59 votes, a substantial majority but one vote short of the 60 needed to secure passage.
| |
| − | | |
| − | AMPLIFYING THE VOICES OF SMALL DONORS
| |
Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately big money in politics has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this are many:
- Though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections,
Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending.
- By their nature, elections and campaigns expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. In the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.
It is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed. The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.
Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. This would provide all voters with a baseline of information about all candidates running.
Combined with this, Greens support public financing of campaigns and elections via a system where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
- Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general.
Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.
- Amend the U.S. Constitution to un-equivocably define that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).
- Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing.
- Establish various forms of public financing, including matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at greater than one-to-one multiple ratio.
- Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures.
- Require that free television and radio time be dedicated to candidates, elections debates and forums ,and political parties as part of all commercial public broadcast licenses.
- Require that time on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels be dedicated to candidates, debates and forums for elections within the PEG area
- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits.
- Overturn the ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds (from Proposition 73 in 1988)
- Provide a check-off option on state income tax forms to donate funds to support ballot qualified political party of their choice (donation does not come out of their taxes, but is separate and additional)
- Require prompt and full disclosure of all permissible contributions on Federal, State, and local government levels
- Eliminate all 'dark money' in elections - i.e. legal donations that are not publicly disclosed, including by amending Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purposes, to un-equivocably define that such organization must operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and that no Federal agency, including the IRS, may interpret this to mean otherwise, including by redefining 'exclusively' as 'primarily', and that any such past interpretations be rendered invalid and void" going forward.
