Loebsack Supports Fair Elections Now Act

Response from Congressman Loebsack to my recent inquiry about publicly funded elections which I favor.

Thank you for contacting me about the Fair Elections Now Act. I'm honored to represent you in Congress. Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible.

I share your concerns about the rising costs of Congressional campaigns and the potential influence of large campaign contributions. In the past, Congress has enacted statutes that have restricted or banned certain funding sources, limited certain expenditures and required disclosure of funds in an effort to enhance electoral competition and allow candidates to focus on important issues rather than fundraising.

The Fair Elections Now Act, H.R. 1826, was introduced by Representative Larson on March 31, 2009. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, which would establish the option of publicly funded campaigns. A candidate who chooses public financing would receive a base grant equal to 80% of the national average of spending by winning House candidates in the previous two election cycles and a 400% match of contributions that do not exceed $100 per individual contributor per election. In addition, this bill would provide broadcast vouchers of $100,000 and would also prohibit the candidate from spending funds raised from Political Action Committees (PAC's).

H.R. 1826 has been referred to the House Committee on Administration, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the House Committee on Ways and Means. Should this bill come to the full House of Representatives for a vote, please be assured I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing in Congress. I am proud to serve Iowa's Second District, and I am committed to working hard for you.

Sincerely,

Dave Loebsack
Member of Congress

Corrupt Politicians Make the Other 10% Look Bad

I'd love to take the credit for that zinger, but it comes from none other than Henry Kissinger. Watch this trailer and see if investing two minutes of your life is worth the other hour and twelve minutes.



Thanks to the Just $6 group who are working on public finacing of elections.

Iowans Want Campaign Reform and Clean Elections

A recent survey by Iowans for Community Improvement commissioned a study that showed Iowans, regardless of party affiliation, support campaign finance reform by a 3 to 1 margin.

Iowa Politics reports that "political donors' overwhelming support (nearly three-fourths) of public financing of elections - Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE)."

When asked, "Many people believe there is too much money in the political process. Do you agree or disagree?" nearly nine out of 10 (88 percent of) donors said they agreed. Just six percent of respondents said they did not believe there was too much money in politics.

These sentiments go across party lines as well, with 89 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, and 82 percent of Independents agreeing that there is too much money in politics.

CLEAN Elections in the House!

What do we want? public financed elections! When do we want them? Now!

If we've learned anything from the banking crisis, lobbyists rule in Washington. Thankfully people like Dick Durbin, Arlen Spector, John Larson and Walter Jones Jr. (and I don't agree him on much) are marching down the aisle with the Fair Elections Now Act bill.

Public Campaign Action reports:

Another big day for Fair Elections in Congress. This morning Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, and Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (R-NC) introduced the House version of the Fair Elections Now Act (HB 7022). This bill is the counterpart to the Fair Elections Now Act (2 1285) introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). This bicameral, bipartisan coalition in support of full public financing for congressional races represents a big step forward for our efforts.

We've had bills introduced in the past that would have brought public financing to Congress, but never have we had this united, bipartisan effort that would establish the gold-standard Fair and Clean Elections programs that have been successful in seven states and two cities in Congress.

Six Bucks a Head for Voter-Funded Elections

Go to Just 6 Dollars for more info:

Watch more videos like this at www.quantumshift.tv

Edwards Goes Public

From Real Clear Politics

For one Democrat, today is going to bring a lot of questions that will send the campaign off message. Former Senator John Edwards yesterday said he would accept public financing for the Democratic primary, a change from his previous plan to raise and spend amounts not subject to the FEC's spending limits. The campaign's point of view: Adhering to spending limits draws an important distinction between Edwards and the two free-spending front-runners. The immediate reaction from other campaigns: Stick a fork in him; Edwards is done. The spending limits, they say, will mean Edwards gets to spend less on advertising in Iowa than New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson already has spent. Really, can you get by with just $1.48 million in Iowa (FEC limits here)?

This change of heart could be tied to the mega-millions that Clinton and Obama have raised or it could be that it is consistent with Edwards shift away from big money donors and PACs. Given that the rules of the road favor the privately funded candidate, Edwards campaign will have fewer arrows in the quill and will depend on more volunteer power to get out his message. Still, in Iowa, Edwards may do just fine without flooding the airwaves with 30 second spots--time will tell.

Money Makes the Campaign Go Around

Where does it come from? The money to run for president--Open Secrets gives us the skinny on the top ten contributors to the 2008 presidential contenders through the second reporting quarter:

Democrats
Hillary Clinton's Top 10 Donors: DLA Piper $293,400, Citigroup Inc $160,500, EMILY's List $138,953, Skadden, Arps et al $134,960, Goldman Sachs $134,050, Cablevision Systems $116,575, Kirkland & Ellis $116,550, Morgan Stanley $113,700,
Viacom Inc $102,500, and Greenberg Traurig LLP $100,200

Barack Obama's Top 10 Donors: Goldman Sachs $311,228, Lehman Brothers $226,550, Exelon Corp $189,350, Sidley Austin LLP $187,750, Citadel Investment Group $168,650, JP Morgan Chase & Co $156,580, Citigroup Inc $152,750, UBS AG $136,000, Jones, Day et al $133,325, and Skadden, Arps et al $112,650

John Edward's Top 10 Donors: ActBlue $1,651,027, Fortress Investment Group $187,850, Stearns, Weaver et al $94,700, Lerach, Coughlin et al $91,850, Goldman Sachs $77,400, Beasley, Allen et al $61,400, Watts Law Firm $61,000, Skadden, Arps et al $55,200, Whitten, Nelson et al $52,300, and Deutsche Bank North America $48,100

Bill Richardson's Top 10 Donors: State of New Mexico $277,230, ActBlue $239,635, American Income Life Insurance $36,600, University of New Mexico $31,950, Sutin, Thayer & Browne $31,365, Bgk Group $27,500, Forest City Enterprises $22,400,
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $20,950, National Recreation Properties $20,700, and Qwest Communications $20,600

Chris Dodd's Top 10 Donors: SAC Capital Advisors $344,100, Citigroup Inc $147,050,
United Technologies $137,250, Royal Bank of Scotland $121,950, Bear Stearns $120,350, Goldman Sachs $99,000, St Paul Travelers Companies $98,800, The Hartford $93,700, American International Group $81,800, and Merrill Lynch $73,400

Joe Biden's Top 10 Donors: Simmons Cooper LLC $62,200, Pachulski, Stang et al $39,000, Cooney & Conway $38,500, Weitz & Luxenberg $36,800, Weil, Gotshal & Manges $34,200, Bank of America $33,200, Broadway Partners $29,900, Adler Group $28,250, Skadden, Arps et al $27,325, Boies, Schiller & Flexner $26,800, and Kasowitz, Benson et al $25,700

Dennis Kucinich's Top 10 Donors: Institute For Democracy Studies $6,300, Krasner Law Office $4,200, Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $2,500, Larry Flynt Publications $2,300, Swig, Weiler & Arnow $2,300, Joyce $2,300, Conval School District $2,300, Kayline Enterprises $2,300, Free Reign $2,300, and Shirley Bogs Estate $2,100

Mike Gravel's Top 10 Donors: Decode Biostructures $2,008, Ogim $1,000, Ccg $1,000, Urburn Univiersity $1,000, Worldwide Media $1,000, VOTEC Corp $1,000, Apple Inc $1,000, Witness for Peace $1,000, Whole Foods Market $580, and Harry Jones Co $500

Republicans

Mitt Romney's Top 10 Donors : Goldman Sachs $175,975, Merrill Lynch $124,250, MarriotInternational $113,050, Bain Capital $107,600, Bain & Co $99,400, Morgan Stanley $91,800, Kirkland & Ellis $84,100, Citigroup Inc $75,100, Compuware Corp $73,650, and Hig Capital $71,175

Rudy Guiliani's Top 10 Donors: Elliott Management $225,850, Ernst & Young $213,500, Credit Suisse Group $151,800, Bear Stearns $136,791, Merrill Lynch $124,200, Lehman Brothers $123,850, Citigroup Inc $103,250, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $91,425, Bracewell & Giuliani $91,100, and Station Casinos $88,300

John McCain's Top 10 Donors : Blank Rome LLP $138,600, Citigroup Inc $113,250, Greenberg Traurig LLP $113,037, Merrill Lynch $107,475, Univision Communications $79,500, MGM Mirage $74,000, IDT Corp $72,150, Goldman Sachs $71,050, Irvine Co Apartment Community $69,400, and Bank of New York Mellon $69,000

Sam Brownback's Top 10 Donors: Koch Industries $23,600, Watco Companies $17,100, Omega Advisors $14,300, Martins Famous Pastry Shoppe $13,800, Murray Energy $7,500, Lario Enterprises $6,700, VGX Pharmaceuticals $6,700, David Stanley Consultants $6,000, Lario Oil & Gas $4,900, Wareing, and Athon & Co $4,700

Ron Paul's Top 10 Donors: Huffines Communities $9,700, US Navy $6,405, US Army $6,350, Microsoft Corp $4,906, US Air Force $4,800, Dunn Capital Management $4,600, Packaged Concrete $4,600, City of Providenct Ri $4,600, Andres Re $4,600, and Geocapital Partners/Equity Mgmt Assoc $4,600

Tom Tancredo's Top 10 Donors: Nussknacker Haus $7,600, US Immigration Reform PAC $5,000, Droste Design & Development $4,400, Millennium Ranch $3,100, Boeing Co $2,801, D&S Printing $2,800, Shore Water $2,300, General Motors $2,300, Omni Anesthesia Assoc $2,300, and Evergreen Analytical $2,300

Duncan Hunter's Top 10 Donors: Milliken & Co $13,850, Maxor Pharmacies $10,200, Trex Enterprises $7,150, Downey Financial Corp $6,900, Dupont Aerospace $6,300, General Atomics $6,000, RA Capital Advisors $5,600, SAXPAC $5,000, Contran Corp $5,000, and McMillin Companies $4,850

Mike Huckabee's Top 10 Donors: Stephens Inc $25,250, Stephen's Group $11,500, State of Arkansas $10,750, First Tape & Label $9,200, Challenger Inc $9,200, Wal-Mart Stores $8,050, Life Outreach International $8,000, Grubbs Infiniti $6,900, Mt Vernon Investments $6,600, and Friday, Eldredge & Clark

Interestingly, Open Secrets points out that all but 1% of campaign contributions come from individuals. It would be interesting to know who the top 99% of individual contributors work for.

Kids Kontributing to Kandidate Koffers

The USA Today Reports

At 8 years old, Matthew Mardirossian is too young to vote. But he and his 7-year-old sister, Karis, each contributed $4,600 to help Democrat Barack Obama win the White House.

In Arizona, 15-year-old actor Hunter Gomez gave $2,300 to Republican John McCain, his home state senator.

Under federal rules, minors can make political donations — as long as it's their money and decision to contribute.

Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, said it's a way people "use their family members to circumvent the limits on individual contributions," which is $2,300 each for the primary and general elections.

"Chances are slim that a 6- or 7-year-old would knowingly give their money to a candidate. They would prefer to spend their money on G.I. Joes or Barbie dolls," said Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center.

How crazy is this? It looks like a legal loophole to allow more donations to be made by adults in the names of their children or worse, to allow minors to fritter away their inheritances on politicians. Yet another reason to support publicly funded elections.

Edwards Calls for Public-Financed Campaigns in California

Edwards headlined a fundraiser in San Francisco on Wednesday, headed to a second one Wednesday evening in the Bay area suburb of Atherton and planned two more Thursday.

During an appearance at the headquarters of search-engine leader Google, Edwards said the current system of paying for campaigns is "dysfunctional."

"The way we finance political campaigns in this country, it couldn't be more unhealthy," Edwards told about 1,000 Google employees.

He called for taxpayer-financed campaigns — the only way, he said, to "literally pull the life out of these big groups — people that have a huge presence in Washington, lobbying groups."

The former senator from North Carolina was the fourth presidential candidate to submit to questioning by executives and staffers of Google.

VOICE News

From Public Campaign Action Fund

You Win Some... You Win Some Later

Activists and key legislators in Iowa burst on the scene this year with an energetic and passionate campaign to win Clean Elections for statewide and legislative races. The Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) Act, introduced in both the House and Senate made it close to a vote on the floor of the House, but due to pressure from Senate and House leadership, the legislative session ended before it could go all the way. While we worked hard to win Iowa this year, we are in a strong position to mount a campaign next year with seasoned leaders on the ground in Iowa and a growing number of allies in the Iowa legislature ready to put their weight behind VOICE the next time around. Stay tuned!

Winning a vital reform like Clean Elections won’t happen overnight, it takes dedication and perseverance and the victories we’ve had from Maine in 1996, to Connecticut in 2005 show that in the end good public financing programs in the states and at the federal level are the way to go. Let’s keep up the fight!

Sign the Petition for the next session

Gronstal Uses His VOICE --To Flip Out

As reported on Blog for Iowa and Tom over at Political Fallout, Senator Mike Gronstal flipped out during an informal meeting with supporters of VOICE (See video story). Clearly aggravated by these activists, Gronstal launched obscenities at the group. One wonders why?

Could it be that his his new position with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is making him a less than fair arbitrator. This being the group that recruits legislative candidates to run for Congress. Gronstal was previously the DLCC Finance Chair.

"With Senator Fitz-Gerald as Chair and Senator Gronstal as Finance Chair, the DLCC also grew to over a ten million dollar committee this cycle, over a 50% increase from the 2004 cycle."

Could it be on the state level Gronstal has raised over $500,000 for his own committee?

"More than 75 percent of the money raised for his committee during that period, $426,250, was contributed to the Iowa Democratic Party."

Could it be that Gronstal is starting a 527 to avoid those FEC regs?

"Now Gronstal and his colleagues are going to create a 527 committee, named for its designation in the IRS tax code. A 527 is created primarily to influence elections through the use of "issue advocacy" ads that avoid regulation by the Federal Election Commission. These groups raise practically unlimited amounts of money from individuals and corporations. Since a 527 is not required to report its source of funds to the FEC, the industries and interests giving money to these groups are seldom disclosed."

Could it be he has not studied states or cities that have clean election laws?

"Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds."

In any case, the closing down of this legislation is a power play by a powerful politician. Do Iowans owe Mike Gronstal an apology for holding his feet to the fire-- NO!--We are simply living up to the state motto--"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." VOICE Activists--High Five.

Say a Prayer for the Contender

As Jackson Browne once pronounced in his song "The Pretender"-- "Between the longing for love and the struggle for the legal tender," politicians scurrying through Iowa are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation with the jaded grassroot voters.

As CNN points out, "Even in the age of Internet campaign announcements, Web chats and virtual primaries, Iowa voters still expect opportunities to rub elbows with all the candidates before next January's caucus."

"Everybody wants to see each candidate, everybody wants to personally talk to each candidate. That's been a tradition in Iowa," said Lee County Democratic Party Chairman Rick Larkin, who came out to eat and mingle with other activists and listen to Clinton.

"You circle around, you kick the tires, look each candidate over and then you make your decision."

"Somebody will come out of Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire with an awful lot of momentum," John Edwards said. "I think it's going to be difficult to win the nomination if you don't do well in the early states."

"But doing well in those states also will cost this cycle's presidential candidates more than ever before -- as evidenced by the record-setting fundraising totals in the first quarter."

"But some Iowa activists fear the race for cash could force candidates to stay out of their state."

"With the primaries being frontloaded, it turns into more of a media event after Iowa," said Larkin, the Lee County Democratic Party chairman. "They may not have as much time to spend in Iowa because they got to be out raising money to make sure they got enough to go on after Iowa."

Publicly funded elections would go a long way to allowing the candidate's message being about who they are, what their plans for the presidency are--in other words keeping politics on the retail level "where the ads take aim and lay their claim to the heart and the soul of the spender" and not turning politicians into commodities to be brokered by a relative few whose agenda is far different than the average Iowa voter.

Until we seriously push for only publicly-financed elections, "Say a prayer for the pretender who started out so young and strong only to surrender."

115 Million Reasons for Publicly-Financed Campaign

Who would be a better leader of the United States? If you base your decisions solely on fundraising ability, Hillary Clinton, for the first quarter of 2007 is your winner.

If candidates are like corporations, how many corporations do you know who can raise this kind of money and are not influenced by their stockholders?

2007 FIRST QUARTER FUNDRAISING
Hillary Clinton - $26m - Junior Senator of New York
Barack Obama - $25m - Junior Senator of Illinois
Mitt Romney - $23m - Former Governor of Massachusetts
Rudy Giuliani - $15m - Former Mayor of New York
John Edwards - $14m - Former Senator of North Carolina
John McCain - $12.5m - Senior Senator of Arizona
(Figures reported by campaigns for the 2008 frontrunners)

It's the Money That Matters

Songwriter Randy Newman said it best "It's the Money that Matters"--as AP and the other news agencies fawn over Mitt and Hillary's ability to load up at the campaign money trough, the message seems to be, "unless you can get the Fat Cats to support you, go home!"

It is a sickness. It says to regular people "you can't play this game, what you think doesn't matter". We need publicly-funded elections. It is the only way democracy can thrive in a climate of where throwing money around is an industry that produces people who are in the grips of very few people.

The problem is, how do you get the rules to change when the rule makers have no reason to change them?

Rethinking Doublethink

Most men when they hit their 40’s do something stupid like cheat on their wives with women half their age or buy a motorcycle. They call it “middle-aged crazy”. They even made a movie about it some years ago. I’m in my mid-40’s and I am experiencing a different kind of middle-aged crazy. Mine has been politically motivated.

Since the fall of 2000, I have become really worked up over the state of our national government, state government, even local government. It is as if there is a desire to erase the progressive changes that took place in the 60’s and 70’s and replace them with an Orwellian view of the world.

George Orwell was the writer of the often required high school read 1984—or rather used to be required reading. In 1984 the world is a place where the greatest practice is called Doublethink. In essence, Doublethink is believing one thing while at the exact same time believing an exactly opposite thing and being able to not only forget one, but being able to forget it completely and totally as if it never existed on demand. A slogan like “War is Peace” is an example of Doublethink.

Well in 2000, as you may remember, we had a newly appointed president (by virtue of the Supreme Court not allowing the Florida state recount to occur). He had campaigned on a platform of compassionate conservatism, rolling back taxes to the middle class, wouldn’t use the military for peacekeeping missions for extended periods of time, “no child left behind,” and so forth.

In 2007 we have a president who believes only he can keep us safe as we wage a war on terror to defeat it and spread democracy which will lead to world peace—again “war is peace.” Our soldiers are being used as peacekeepers while they simultaneously complete a war.

Compassionate conservative that he is, he managed to raise the federal deficit to over 7.5 trillion dollars, while reducing funding to human service programs. Children may be doing all right in school if they are able to go and are ready to go. Since conservatives tend to be for less government, it follows that the largest sector of job growth has been government jobs.

He is also the President that said that creating jobs would require giving tax-cuts to everybody (of which the wealthiest 1% benefited the most and the poorest the least) instead of payroll tax-cuts that actually help businesses to grow.

As I tried to decipher the disconnects between what the president promised, I found myself becoming more and more upset about the direction of the country. So when people like Howard Dean said “take back America” that sounded pretty good to me—until I realized that it was a politician saying it to me.

As the Who said a long time ago “Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss,” --government changes hands, but the power behind the throne is unchanging. The government of the US is actually guilty of anti-trust. We have two parties that essentially make it virtually impossible for other parties to exist. All any party has to do is claim the third, fourth, or fortieth party is a spoiler and use fear tactics to retain control.

This is why "we the people" need to push for publicly financed campaigns and "clean election" laws. In Iowa, we have a chance to open up the process to different ideas or at least a third way. Contact your state representatives and ask them to support HSB 105 and get it out of committee. It is important to the future of Iowans to have a real choice and to encourage more people to choose public service.

Help Iowans Get a VOICE

From former Iowa Representative/Gubernatorial candidate and current John Edward supporter/consultant Ed Fallon's I'm for Iowa to subscribe, go here

VOTER-OWNED IOWA CLEAN ELECTIONS (VOICE)
It's exciting to see legislation making its way through the Iowa House. But lawmakers need to hear from us. I put together this Q & A piece that might prove helpful.

Q: What is VOICE, and how does it work?
A: VOICE is a campaign finance system that lets candidates run for office without relying on special-interest money. VOICE is voluntary, and it gives candidates a choice on how to finance their campaigns. If a candidate wants to run a conventional campaign, (s)he can still raise money from PACs, lobbyists and big donors. But in states like Maine and Arizona, more people are choosing to run using the clean elections system, and a majority of them are winning.Under the proposed Iowa law, participating candidates limit their fundraising to $5 donations from residents of their districts. If they're a House candidate, they need to raise 100 $5 donations. For Senate candidates, the requirement is 200 $5 donations. A candidate for governor must raise 2,500 $5 donations, with 20% coming from each congressional district. The bill applies to all statewide and legislative offices.When the candidate raises the required number of $5 donations, the money is deposited in the state's clean elections fund. The candidate then receives from that fund:
-- for a House candidate, $15,000 for the primary and $30,000 for the general;
-- for a Senate candidate, $22,000 for the primary and $40,000 for the general; and
-- for candidates for governor, $750,000 for the primary, $3 million for the general.
If a VOICE candidate has an opponent who raises money from conventional sources and who exceeds the initial amount of money allotted to the VOICE candidate, the VOICE candidate receives an additional dollar for dollar match. This allows the VOICE candidate to remain competitive. And because VOICE candidates no longer incur fundraising expenses, the money they receive from the clean elections fund tends to go a lot further.

Q: Is there a VOICE bill before the Iowa Legislature?
A: Yes. It's called HSB 105. The bill is in the House State Government Committee, and there is a companion bill in the Senate. To read the bill, visit http://www.legis.state.ia.us/ and type "HSB 105" in the upper right hand corner in the box marked "Quick Find: Bills and Iowa Code." This web page also allows you to find committee members and to obtain contact information for any representative or senator.

Q: How much will VOICE cost?
A: It depends on what elections the bill covers. If VOICE is available to just legislative candidates, the price tag will be around $3 million per election cycle. If it also covers all statewide elections, as in Arizona, it will cost around $10 million per election cycle.

Q: How will VOICE be financed?
A: This type of legislation is often referred to as "public financing," and to some people that implies raising taxes on the average person to pay for political campaigns. Under HSB 105, that's not the case. Most of the money would come from a sales tax on advertising – so corporations and others (like politicians!) who spend a lot on advertising would foot the bill. Additional revenue for the fund would come from the $5 qualifying contributions, an income tax check-off and other voluntary donations.

Q: How will VOICE improve the political process?
A: VOICE lets candidates focus on meeting voters as opposed to wining and dining lobbyists and big donors. By drastically reducing the role of money in politics, VOICE returns power to the people that government is supposed to represent. In Maine, State Senator Ed Youngblood, a retired bank executive, wanted to spend time with voters instead of raising money. "I wanted to be able to say 'I'm not accountable to anyone but you, the voter.'" He defeated a sixteen-year incumbent.
In fact, 83% of Maine legislators were elected using the clean elections system. In Arizona, nine of eleven statewide office holders were elected using that state's clean elections system, including two-term governor Janet Napolitano. Ultimately, if lawmakers no longer are beholden to big donors and special interests, they are more likely to focus on issues voters want to see addressed. For example, in recent years in both Maine and Arizona, significant health care initiatives were enacted, despite opposition from lobbyists in the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Q: What effect would VOICE have on third-party candidates?
A: In Maine and Arizona, the clean elections law has had no noticeable impact on third party participation in elections. There are still some third-party candidates who run and qualify for clean elections funds, but with only a couple exceptions, the candidates who win are either Democrat or Republican.
Many prospective candidates don't run for office because they are intimidated by the huge amount of money they need to raise. Now that candidates in Maine and Arizona have a viable option to big-money campaigns, more people are willing to run, and this is healthy in a democracy. Yet the threshold for viability in a clean elections system (i.e., lots of small donations from residents of the district) is high enough to discourage truly fringe candidates, but not so onerous to discourage legitimate candidates of any political persuasion.

PAC money and Publically Funded Elections

My friends in the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic party" will not like this, but it needs to be said. PAC money is part of the problem of politics. Basically, just like money from private "big" donors, it is dished out to folks who dance to your tune, whether it is labor unions or Boss Tweed, it still is about buying influence.

The only answer that makes sense is for elections to be publicly funded. Arizona and Maine are two states that have adopted this and it works!

John J. Higgins reports that "traditional campaign finance reform sounds like such a remedy, but dig a little deeper and you find that reform laws have done nothing to address the dilemma of big money in politics or to boost voter turnout. All they have done is make an already inefficient and confusing system more inefficient and more confusing. Catching the bad guys is important, but without real alternatives there is no real remedy... The public funding method has changed politics in both Arizona and Maine for the better, so much so that Arizona is seeing a staggering 67 percent increase in voter turnout since its inception. Furthermore, the percentage of highest spenders winning elections has gone from 79 percent before public funding to just 2 percent since, showing without a doubt that public funding takes the power of money out of campaigning and returns it to the strength of ideas. More minorities and women are running and winning using public funding, because it naturally gives voice to populations and communities that have been underrepresented in the past. It has freed up lawmakers from the money-chase and has allowed them the opportunity to become better community advocates. In Maine, lawmakers have rolled back industry tax credits, created the most progressive prescription drug program in the country and are moving toward universal healthcare for all citizens."

States such as Hawaii, Rhode Island, Washington, and Connecticut are considering public funding measures. If we really want to democratize the system, we need to try to level the playing field. The requirements of a publicly financed system are still stringent enough to limit the "crackpot" factor--because it requires a genuine support of the candidate for the grassroots.