Support campaign finance reform
Effort to change finance laws a step in the right direction
By Daniel Ginsberg-Jaeckle
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
Wisconsin’s privatized campaign financing system has been to the benefit of those with wealth since day one. The more wealth one has in Wisconsin, the more access to government one may obtain.
Billion dollar presidential races financed by the wealthiest one percent; legislative leaders behind bars for corruption offenses; Wisconsin Supreme Court races marked by scandal and controversy – Damn right we lobbied Governor Jim Doyle to convene a special legislative session on campaign finance reform.
And so, at the request of Democracy Matters at UWM and other grassroots reform movements, Gov. Doyle found the heart on the morning of Nov. 30 to use his executive privilege to convene legislative action to pass a better comprehensive, bipartisan campaign finance reform.
This has been the vision of Democracy Matters at UWM, a student group founded last year with the purpose of lobbying the State of Wisconsin to fix its broken electoral system.
“Legislation has already been drafted that both Democrats and Republicans should support,” Doyle declared in his Nov. 30 press release. ”I am now asking the Legislature to convene in special session and act quickly on the bipartisan package of reforms that will update and improve our campaign financing system in Wisconsin.”
A possible update to the current elections system will, if approved by the state legislature, create an optional “Clean Elections” system of full public financing so that political candidates can run clean campaigns, true to the voter, that do not depend on the money of special interests and the wealthy elite who finance a majority of political campaigns. The whole system could even be financed by a new proposed lobbyist tax that would save the
Wisconsin’s privatized campaign financing system has been to the benefit of those with wealth since day one. The more wealth one has in Wisconsin, the more access to government one may obtain. It’s simple to see this, as only 10 percent of Wisconsin citizens donate to political campaigns, while a majority of this money, over 80 percent, comes from the wealthiest one percent of wage earners.
A 2005 study by Wisconsin Democracy Campaign shows that state grants, low-interest loans and tax credits were “substantially higher (4.5 times more) to individuals and companies that made campaign contributions,” further showing that people with wealth are using our current campaign financing system to their advantage while vital services in our communities may be lacking in state funding.
The more money flowing to capitols around this country to purchase political power, the more states are beginning to realize the need to change campaign financing system. This is why seven states have introduced Clean Elections full public financing for their elections, and why Wisconsin will hopefully become the eighth.
As the Brennan Center for Justice stated in their 2006 campaign financing report, which ranked Wisconsin second-worst in the Midwest, “By minimizing the influence of money on politics, comprehensive campaign finance laws can decrease politicians’ dependence on the wealthy elite and increase politicians’ incentives for honesty.” Bingo.
If you still do not see the plutocracy developing rapidly in our state, consider this: In Wisconsin’s 2006 elections, 34.5 percent of the races went uncontested. Only 17.2 percent were declared competitive while the other 48.3 percent were considered non-competitive (competitive being elections won within five percent of votes).
Records are being set in every election during every election cycle. Our last Wisconsin Supreme Court race totaled $5.8 million in combined spending. Our assembly speaker bought his seat for a record $220,000. $8.3 million was spent overall for our Attorney General, five times higher than the last election cycle. The costs for every campaign keep going up beyond the rate of inflation. It seems only logical that our state is so politically noncompetitive; who can afford to run for office these days?
While the cost goes up, Wisconsin voters can only expect more campaign costs, more lobbyists, less access to government, and more tax money diverted away from the needy who cannot afford to finance the increasing costs of political campaigns.
Thank Gov. Doyle for convening this special session that will hopefully change our broken campaign financing system. Make sure to call your State Senator and Representative today and tell them to support a system of full public financing for all in-state elections.
> Comments
AJ Piwarun on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:20 AM:
Daniel, Did Gov. Doyle also find it in his heart to tell you he was wrong for violating campaign finance laws himself? And did he also renounce the dirty money from rigged state contracts?
My suggestion is to do more factfinding because you praise a corrupt individual.
Daniel GInsberg-Jaeckle on Dec 12, 2007 at 01:42 PM:
AJ, thank you so much for the suggestion. You make a very good point that money in politics corrupts both political parties!
If you noticed in this piece, I did not put any particular blame on any specific political party, nor did I praise Doyle for being a champion of campaign finance reform - I simply thanked Doyle for doing what we have been specifically asking of him. In fact, my 'thank you' to Gov. Doyle is a somewhat facetious remark, and if you understood the context of this article maybe you'd get it.
I am well aware that many politicians have corruption scandals involving money in politics. This doesn't mean I have to lose focus of my article and add in each individual corrupt scandal. To do this "fact finding" that you suggest (which to you seems to be quick google searches) would be irrelevant as the objective of this piece is to make the point that Democracy Matters worked hard to get something done about a broken, loophole-ridden system.
If you disagree with my point that Wisconsin is ready for a system of optional full public financing for elections, I challenge you to quit hiding behind internet commentary like you've done all semester and publicly debate me.
Daniel GInsberg-Jaeckle on Dec 12, 2007 at 01:42 PM:
AJ, thank you so much for the suggestion. You make a very good point that money in politics corrupts both political parties!
If you noticed in this piece, I did not put any particular blame on any specific political party, nor did I praise Doyle for being a champion of campaign finance reform - I simply thanked Doyle for doing what we have been specifically asking of him. In fact, my 'thank you' to Gov. Doyle is a somewhat facetious remark, and if you understood the context of this article maybe you'd get it.
I am well aware that many politicians have corruption scandals involving money in politics. This doesn't mean I have to lose focus of my article and add in each individual corrupt scandal. To do this "fact finding" that you suggest (which to you seems to be quick google searches) would be irrelevant as the objective of this piece is to make the point that Democracy Matters worked hard to get something done about a broken, loophole-ridden system.
If you disagree with my point that Wisconsin is ready for a system of optional full public financing for elections, I challenge you to quit hiding behind internet commentary like you've done all semester and publicly debate me.
Daniel GInsberg-Jaeckle on Dec 12, 2007 at 01:42 PM:
AJ, thank you so much for the suggestion. You make a very good point that money in politics corrupts both political parties!
If you noticed in this piece, I did not put any particular blame on any specific political party, nor did I praise Doyle for being a champion of campaign finance reform - I simply thanked Doyle for doing what we have been specifically asking of him. In fact, my 'thank you' to Gov. Doyle is a somewhat facetious remark, and if you understood the context of this article maybe you'd get it.
I am well aware that many politicians have corruption scandals involving money in politics. This doesn't mean I have to lose focus of my article and add in each individual corrupt scandal. To do this "fact finding" that you suggest (which to you seems to be quick google searches) would be irrelevant as the objective of this piece is to make the point that Democracy Matters worked hard to get something done about a broken, loophole-ridden system.
If you disagree with my point that Wisconsin is ready for a system of optional full public financing for elections, I challenge you to quit hiding behind internet commentary like you've done all semester and publicly debate me.
Daniel GInsberg-Jaeckle on Dec 12, 2007 at 01:42 PM:
AJ, thank you so much for the suggestion. You make a very good point that money in politics corrupts both political parties!
If you noticed in this piece, I did not put any particular blame on any specific political party, nor did I praise Doyle for being a champion of campaign finance reform - I simply thanked Doyle for doing what we have been specifically asking of him. In fact, my 'thank you' to Gov. Doyle is a somewhat facetious remark, and if you understood the context of this article maybe you'd get it.
I am well aware that many politicians have corruption scandals involving money in politics. This doesn't mean I have to lose focus of my article and add in each individual corrupt scandal. To do this "fact finding" that you suggest (which to you seems to be quick google searches) would be irrelevant as the objective of this piece is to make the point that Democracy Matters worked hard to get something done about a broken, loophole-ridden system.
If you disagree with my point that Wisconsin is ready for a system of optional full public financing for elections, I challenge you to quit hiding behind internet commentary like you've done all semester and publicly debate me.
AJ Piwarun on Dec 13, 2007 at 04:02 PM:
Daniel, clean elections are obviously needed around here. Noone will dispute that.
I wouldn't mind debating you, but it would most likely be about your open support for dictators such as Hugo Chavez and Fidelo Castro, and, of course, your idea that socialism is good.
AJ Piwarun's Subconscience on Dec 13, 2007 at 08:43 PM:
Wait, Bush "won" the 2000 election even though he didn't win the majority of votes, the 2004 election was fraudulent [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wasthe2004electionstolen], while Chavez won 3 democratic elections fair and square- and yet you call Chavez the dictator?
If by socialism you mean workers' self-management of factories, worker's councils, and qualitatively greater participatory democracy, then hell yes, socialism is good! All power to the people!
Check out the 12th Amendment- the American public can't even vote for the president- the Electors do. In that light, American democracy seems pretty weak- you can't even vote for who you want to be president. [http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitutionamendments11-27.html#12]
If you don't think socialism is good, you don't really know what it's about, and so you best ought talk to Dan and get ready for some truth. Stalinism isn't socialism- put that college education to use AJ!
Johanan Raatz on Dec 14, 2007 at 09:35 PM:
"Check out the 12th Amendment- the American public can't even vote for the president- the Electors do. In that light, American democracy seems pretty weak- you can't even vote for who you want to be president. "
Well that's good. Democracy is good but it need's to be tempered with Republican elements like this to prevent it from going overboard and causing bad things to happen like allowing for socialism.
It's good we have healthy checks on too much democracy in our constitution. Democracy that is not tempered leads to mob rule.
Wow on Dec 15, 2007 at 12:24 AM:
lol Raatz you nut
Wow on Dec 15, 2007 at 12:24 AM:
lol Raatz you nut
Johanan Raatz on Dec 15, 2007 at 07:26 PM:
"lol Raatz you nut"
Would you care to elaborate?
Your certainly not suggesting that we should allow unchecked mob rule are you?
King George the Second on Dec 16, 2007 at 01:47 PM:
All hail the king. Democracy = mob rule... democracy clearly leads to mob rule and not to other things such as peace, justice, equality, freedom, etc. We must protect the people from themselves- because they cannot govern themselves- hence the need for nobility.
As Alexander Hamilton said: "The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the FIRST CLASS a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."
Yes, let us give the FIRST CLASS a PERMANENT share in government- to rule over the SECOND CLASS who cannot decipher right from wrong, and who cannot benefit from change since we are living in THE BEST OF ALL CAPITALIST WORLDS.
Now if you'll escuse me, I have to go count my money.
AJ Piwarun on Dec 20, 2007 at 10:06 AM:
Wow "AJ Piwarun's Subconscience", you must be really confident in your argument seeing you attached your name to it. You gotta love anonymous postings!
I do have a general idea of who it might be though... there can't be more than 7 people that actually believe half the propaganda you distribute.
AJ Piwarun's Subconscience on Dec 21, 2007 at 10:51 AM:
You need to 'chillax' AJ, and take a joke. Didn't mean to stomp on anyone's feelings, nor tear your argument to pieces, wait... I did! lollollollollollol JK AJ!
There's too much drama in the US that you'll go crazy without a sense of humor- like remember that box of ballots they found IN THE WOODS in Florida during the 2000 presidential election? That's incredibly funny, but also incredibly saddening.
But for real, what about that 12th Amendment? You can't even vote for the president who lies to you AJ!
Yours truly, Nathan Johnson