Funding of Elections for the Future
By Bill Jamieson | November 12th, 2010 | Category: Politics & Public Policy | No Comments »The following article was written by Bob Howarth, a retired engineer from San Diego, California. Bob now lives in Asheville, North Carolina and is a thoughtful participant in civic affairs and social issues.
Through my near 80 years I have formed some conclusions as to the way things are and as to the way I think they should be. I share some of this with you in the hope that you may find some merit here that may serve to help you and others you deal with in your daily life.
I have concluded that the influence of special interest money, especially corporate money, has so skewed our election process that many if not most legislators are overly influenced by and in too many cases addicted to these monies for campaign funds for their next election.
The result of this unhealthy situation is that our elected representatives too often see things, act, and vote with more concern for the wants of corporations rather than for the needs of their own constituents. This condition is fed and supported by many well paid and experienced full-time lobbyists (about 5 for every Congressman ) that daily ply the halls of our government office buildings to “update and inform” our legislators.
Couple this with the scarcity of inputs from us, the constituents (largely due to a diminishing trust in government and a “what’s the use” attitude), and the result is the unhealthy and dysfunctional state of many of our governing bodies.
To “un-skew” this unhealthy dependency requires attacking and greatly reducing the addiction. I see public funding of elections (PFE) as the best remedy. This has been recognized and is utilized in 5 states ( Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon) and in other countries (Australia for one). North Carolina has enacted PFE for judicial offices, State Auditor, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. Good legislation is available and functional.
How to implement enough PFE to be effective is the challenge. It will not happen without great demand from us voters; Congress won’t do it on its own – it can’t, it’s addicted. Most state legislatures (slightly less addicted) are reluctant to act without prodding by voters.
It will require significant efforts, phone calls, letters, visits to offices, public meetings, demonstrations, marches and talking it up among our peers to make this happen. It’s not going to happen at the current abysmal level of awareness. Most citizens are ignorant of the merits and potential of PFE, so a good deal of AWARENESS RAISING is essential.
More voters and any group or organization engaged in social justice, environmental sustainability, civil rights, poverty mitigation , etc. must come to realize that with PFE they will get better representation and much greater success for their efforts. One important step in this AWARENESS RAISING would be you to ask any group or committee you are member of to better familiarize itself as to the need for and benefits of PFE for its work and for all facets of society.
Succeeding in that, I propose that those groups endorse PFE and join in spreading the word as opportunities arise. Democracy North Carolina, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, & Massachusetts Council of Churches are among the many supporters of election reform. You can get further information at www.democracy-nc.org, www.lwv.org, www.commoncause.org and www.fairelectionsnow.org for additional information. In North Carolina the first 3 of these groups join in a coalition, NC Voters for Clean Elections (NCVCE), and they work with the North Carolina Center for Voter Education. They use the term Voter Owned Elections (VOE) rather than PFE.
Facebook
Twitter
email
Add to favorites
Digg
StumbleUpon