If you've ever been to the racetrack you know a key point about politics. When you put your $2 on a horse, odds are you've done so because you think that horse has a pretty good chance to win. It's not as though you believe the $2 will make the horse run faster. You're making an investment, as opposed to trying to influence the outcome of the race.
Election campaigns, especially for the New Jersey Legislature, are similar.
Most districts are either safe Republican or safe Democratic, and the incumbents stand very little chance of losing. The groups that make donations to candidates, for the most part, most of their money to those who need it the least. Like you at the track, they're not trying to influence the outcome of the race so much as to put a bet down on the winner.
And some time in the weeks, months or years to come, when the people who gave that money want a legislator to vote a certain way, it's their hope that the investment they had the foresight to make earlier will help the right thing to happen.
That's the way it is. It doesn't mean every vote is for sale in every instance. But it does, human nature being what it is, mean access. I run a nonprofit organization and you can be sure that if I have a stack of phone messages the ones I'll return first are from folks who have made a donation (which, by the way, is tax-deductible, should you be inclined to support NJPP).
No one knows how much influence big money has in politics, but it is safe to assume it has more influence than little money (or no money). So the Clean Elections pilot program taking place in three legislative districts this fall is worth rooting for. I won't go into all the details, but the bottom line is that if a candidate can get more than 400 people to each donate no more than $10 (that's not a typo; it's a one and a zero), and agree not to take money in the traditional bigger chunks, the state will pay most of the campaign costs.
Opponents of this (and there are many) say it means the government lines the pockets of candidates. Of course, when the system works as it should, government is` merely "us," and that means we are first in line instead of moneyed businesses and other interest groups. Maine and Arizona already have versions of Clean Elections, and supporters say it is helping to bring independent-minded candidates and cutting down on lobbying.
Nothing is perfect. Public funding of campaigns is not the single cure-all for all the illegal corruption and legal but frustrating non-responsiveness in New Jersey government. But it sure is worth a try. I would rather have my representatives pondering the issues of the day than dialing for dollars.
I'm glad you used the word investment concerning campaign financing. It's true that the current major parties (CMPs) contributors both expect and recieve a return on their investment, but this is how our system is designed to work.
The politicians are merely representing the people that got them elected. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If average citizens want politicians to represent the interests of average citizens then they must be willing to finance the campaigns.
The CMPs spent about 2.6 billion dollars in 2006. Just half of the 120 million 2004 voters INVESTING just 100 dollars in political contributions would total 6 billion dollars.
Citizens can use the political contribution vouchers available at www.hundreddollarparty.org to offer the CMP candidates the 6 billion dollars if the candidate agrees to finance their campaigns only with contributions from individuals in the amount of say 200 dollars or less and return all contributions they have already recieved that exceed that amount and all contributions not from individuals.
This would force the CMP candidates to choose between their current contributors or the 6 billion dollars. If the CMP candidates make it clear they will not represent the interests of average citizens by choosing their current contributors, citizens could use the 6 billion dollars to finance third party or independent candidates.
Any candidate that recieved a significant portion of the 6 billion would have to be considered a contender and would not be ignored by the media. ( Campaign contributions are mostly spent on advertising- the media will not ignore advertising revenue.)
Now that citizens know it can be done, they might be wondering what kind of return they would get on their investment. Simple. Government that represents the interests of average citizens.
That's right, a government that does what needs to be done without doubling as an ATM for the favored few. And that means that an average citizen will save hundreds and/or thousands of dollars in taxes that are currently being siphoned off on while what needs to get done is covered with a band-aid or fresh coat of paint.
So the question is will Mr. Shure support this reform or will he continue to pretend that scams such as the "Clean Elections" red herring will do any thing other than what they were designed to do- fool citizens into thinking something positive was done while actually making the problem worse.
To learn why clean elections is a fraud see my comments on the Daily Record editorial "Kean on corruption" and my article "National political ad network" in the opinion section of the forum at www.dailyrecord.com . While you're there read "There's two guys in a tree.." that explains how every single person in the entire country that is eligible to vote has had their right to vote unconstitutionally denied and most don't even know that it has happened.
I hope Mr. Shure will also speak out about this injustice that goes to the very heart of democracy- the right to vote.
Mr Shure or anyone can contact me directly with questions or comments on these issues at question@hundreddollarparty.org
Jon - I am suprised by your "rcetrack" analogy and overall analysis, which seems contrdictory nd naive, at best.
The campaign contribution money provides preferential access, and a sense of entitlement for favors (by the giver) and of obligation (by the receiver).
This is not analogous to a bet on a horse, and is both human nature and corrupt democratic politics (small d). It borders on legallized bribery.
Please don't legitimize the curretn situation by pretenting that those that fund the politicians don't have far greater access to and influence on government - adn that thsi influence oftern contrardcits the public interest teh legislator was elected to seerve (and executive branch officials adn actions need to be part of this conversation too!).
A bet is an arms length transaction. A campaign contribution is not.
This is wrong, and a major part of the problem.
