Letter to the Editor
Why YES on 3?
Published Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Aug. 7, 2008
To the editor:
Clean Elections will be on the primary ballot in just a few weeks, but the initiative has gotten little media attention and many voters may not understand how they would benefit.
This citizen’s initiative to clean up state politics is dubbed “Clean Elections,” but that phrase will not appear in the initiative. Instead, the public will vote on whether or not to publicly fund political campaigns.
Giving money to politicians to bad-mouth each other seems absurd at first … but it turns out that when their campaigns are funded by the people, politicians work for the people — and do a better job of it — increasing state revenue in the long run. Incumbents, despite their connections and power, become vulnerable: They can either accept public funding, and spend their time and energy on voters and issues instead of fundraising, or lose their seats to those who will.
Politicians supported by public funding tend to have diverse backgrounds, and bring new ideas and energy to state legislatures. Best of all, publicly funded legislators are not indebted to corporations looking to influence their decisions.
If voters know that publicly funding political campaigns is a sure way to take big money out of Alaska politics, stopping the next VECO scandal before it starts, they will give it overwhelming approval; but they need more information. Find out about what publicly funded campaigns have done for the seven states where they are enacted, including Arizona and Maine, by searching the Internet. Those voters will never go back to letting big business buy their governments.
See www.publicampaign.org and www.alaskansforcleanelections.org.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
What, you want to keep the special interests from determining the outcome of our elections? But the current system we have works so well. None of our elected officials have been indicted or convicted on corruption charges...
I want a balloon....
I'd like a purple balloon.
It also doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that we should pay political representatives, but we do that anyways. And to thank us, they like to vote themselves raises! Now who is taking from whom? Perhaps a little background is in order: Arizona, Connecticut and Maine are states that have implemented public financing and the sky has not fallen. In fact, what I've managed to find suggests it has empowered the working class. This will free prospective candidates (and incumbents) from the burdensome job of brown-nosing around corporate contributors (such as VECO) when they could be talking to the folks they presume to represent instead.
"Empowered the working class" sounds oddly familiar....maybe something I heard years ago...a guy named Marx or perhaps it was in a little Red book.
does anyone remember the time when they ( the politicians running for offices ) used to come around to the smaller towns and villages. I remember meeting Jay Hammond and nick Begich as a young kid, as they came seeking the votes from my parents and the people of those towns, getting there opinions on the issuse and tell them of what they think of it. I guess that the gas prices are to high for them to do that. Or is it that they have been in office to long to care what you an I think. If they had to do that then maybe we would have elected officials that are for helping out the people and for a better life that they represent.instead of special interest groups.
I sure do miss Jay he was truely for us alaskans
Barack Obama has turned down public funding of his campaign (after endorsing public funding) and is canoodling more than $300,000,000 from lawyers, lobbyists, bloggers, and film-makers. John McCain kept his promise and opted for public funding.
How do these two facts play against Anna's statements? Will she vote for the presidential candidate that supports her principles? Or is Anna a "do as I say, not as I do" voter?
I might agree with some social programs, but I'm no Marxist, thanks. Something about when you assume... Anyways, I use the phrase "empower the working class" loosely here, more in the context of a capitalist society. To define it more clearly for you, it means they come around brown-nosing to you and me rather than VECO et al. This is the only chance most people will get for a face-to-face, especially in Alaska, and hence a valuable moment to assert your own influence beyond the ballot box. Of course, most candidates already have their party-designated platforms, regardless of their self-styled images as "mavericks" or otherwise since that sort of open-minded thought often gets you thrown from the party or at least stripped of your important positions (remember Bob Lynn during the longevity bonus). So maybe it doesn't matter anyways. Maybe the yes on 3 folks should just air a bunch of sensational ads sponsored by large donors to get their measure passed since that seems to resonate with today's voting populace. Hypocrisy be damned!
Prospector, I can understand your concern about Obama's financing strategy. I for one had grave concerns at first and then decided it was just one issue of several I dislike of his, but he is still better than McCain. His campaign funding is not the primary reason I would vote for Obama.
If we're going to sling mud, let's not forget McCain casting off his not-as-beautiful-as-I-remembered-her first wife for a much younger (and wealthier) one upon returning from Vietnam. Now, she has publicly supported him, and he has ostensibly been good to her in terms of paying for medical bills while also apparently remaining faithful to his current one. In priniciple, I find affairs abhorrent, but were I a McCain supporter I'd probably be willing to overlook that distasteful indiscretion.
Checking the website I find most of the candidates that support this initiative have a (D) by their name. Personally I make contributions to the candidates that I want to see in power. Who will pay for these publicly financed campaigns? Will we the voters pay for the campaigns of candidates that have no support and no chance of winning? Does this make sense?
"Who will pay for these publicly financed campaigns?"
Anyone want to state the obvious to contribute to the public understanding?
Oh I know who it will be.....same as with all big brother ideas. It's kind of like having to pay for your spouse’s lawyer when you get a divorce... But in fairness to those who can't raise the money to compete we will even the playing field at chance.
Well if you'd rather have politicians chasing corporate tail, why don't you just say "I'm a neo-corporate fascist that is satisfied with status quo economics and proud of it." I think Thomas Jefferson would have you deported to England, sir.
brassmonkey---
I can see how Prospector's comment about Obama reneging on public financing is relevant.
But what does the personal life of McCain have to do with public financing of campaigns? If you should find out tommorrow that Obama is not pure as the wind driven snow, does that mean you wont vote for him?
I think you missed my point. That being that I would rather see Obama in office because I find his overall record and platform more in line with my values and beliefs. McCain's target voters would similarly say the same thing rather than spend time fretting over his past indiscretions. I have no delusion tha Obama or McCain are pure in any intent. They are, after all, politicians so pick your poison at everyone's peril...
Also, how many people are really voting for either candidate based on their position on campaign finance reform? You can find as many reversals on either side as both candidates learn from their mistake in this protracted process. Either one will use a finger to determine the direction of the wind. The point of the letter here is to help clean up AK politics which I think we can all agree on. Or do I have to mention the list: Allen, Smith, Bobrick, Anderson, Kott, Kohring, Clark, Weimar, CBC, [position not-yet-filled]. If you have criticisms, perhaps some constructive ideas would be helpful rather than just whining about your perceived political adversaries?
So in about three days are we going to have the letter titled "Why NO on 3"? This letter is about as useful as the letters praising Obama or bashing Don Young/Ted Stevens. Literature from this forum or the letters to the editor section of the Daily News Miner should not sway voters.
If your letting someone else convince you either to vote or not to vote for a candidate/issue based on his or her opinion, then just don't vote. Let the cadidates currently running or your own interpretation of the issues at hand influence your vote. It's our country but it's ultimately up to the individual who votes for what he/she believes in that decides who and how it's run.
Why are the comments here full of people that just call everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh a socialist instead of making a substantive argument. The facts are that publicly financing campaigns has proven to be very effective in other states, the current system encourages corruption and limits the pool of candidates, and publicly-financing is cheap and pays for itself with better legislators, better legislations, and fewer giveaways.
This ballot measure has been endorsed by Wally Hickel, Jim Whitaker, Vic Vickers, Gabrielle Ledoux, and many other Republicans.
Whoa brassmonkey---
You opened the can of stink. Not me.
Proposition 3 tries to solve a problem that is already addressed by law. It is illegal for corporations and unions to donate to campaigns in Alaska. It is illegal for a legislator to sell influence. It is illegal to exceed set amounts for campaign contributions by individuals.
We might want to tighten the laws on contribution bundling.
Proposition 3 will create more problems than it solves. I do not want to contribute to candidates that I disagree with. Candidates can get around public financing by spending their own war chests, if they can do it 3 to 1. I dont think that that will be difficult for incumbants.
Proposition 3 is flawed.
Brassmonkey,
I can understand that perspective, but Obama doesn't exactly have a long track record to base a solid opinion on. Half his time in his first office has been his campaign for the presidency, causing him to miss/skip quite a few votes that would have clearly defined his views on a number of issues. Also, I am no McCain fan, but I am also hesitant to put someone with lots of good intentions (Something about a road to hell...) and very little history in one of the most important positions in the world.
Unfortunately, our options in this election are rather limited. Even the "3rd Party" candidates leave something to be desired.
apinak---
If people to the left of Rush Limbaugh would quit trying to figure out new ways to spend my money, and increase the size and scope of government, I'll be the first to quit calling them socialists.
Your stated facts are opinions. You can call opinions "facts" all day long, but it doesn't make it so. This post by me is opinion. My last post was fact.
Also, I am not impressed by the list of endorsers for Prop 3. Sorry.
But Vik Lindauer...I mean Vickers...dang!
GlacierLes,
First of all, "your money" is mostly taxes and royalties on the oil companies from drilling our oil with a large helping of wealth distribution from other peoples taxes from other states. Thanks to the FBI, we now have a much better ppt tax and a large budget surplus. Without proposition 3 we could easily fall back to a time when someone like VECO can determone our tax policies.
Second, we are not trying to spend more money, we are trying to hold government accountable for the way it spends our money. Publicly funded campaigns is money well spent. You seem to be about the only one that thinks the current system works fine.
Anna-
I agree completely. If this passes, maybe our legislators will work for Alaska instead of insisting on projects in other states. Take Coconut Road for example, what good is that doing Alaskans and who is paying Don Young to back that issue?
From the Kodiak Daily Mirror
"Under the proposed law, candidates who opt to run a clean election campaign would be required to gather between 200 and 3,000 signatures, depending on the seat or office they are running for, along with $5 contributions.
The money from the contributions goes into a pool in the state savings account, and the state adds additional money to fund candidates’ campaigns.
Once signatures and contributions are obtained, candidates would be required to pledge to not accept private contributions. They would then qualify for public funding ranging from $16,000 to $250,000 for primary elections, and $24,000 to $500,000 for general elections. They also would qualify for up to three times the public funding amount if they were outspent by opponents not participating in the program, in both the primary and general elections."
Seems to me like the state could end up spending quite a bit of money on this equalization plan. I would prefer they spent the money making my energy bill go down.
apinak---
First, Rush Limbaugh is not involved in Prop 3. I thought that you were asking about being a socialist in broader terms. Thus, you took me by surprise talking about spending my "taxes" here in Alaska.
Some Alaskans, myself included, believe that even though we dont fill out a tax form, we are one of the most highly taxed states in the nation. That money in Juneau does not belong to the state government, but to the citizens of Alaska. If you believe that, then we are taxed at the rate of around 99%.
Prop 3 will not change one dynamic of how and why those state legislators were busted by the FBI. If you disagree, I would really like to know the basis of your argument.
I doubt if I'm all alone on my side of the debate. We'll find out on election day.
GlacierLes-
Here is some evidence that VECO has corrupted politics through legal and illegal campaign contributions.
http://realtime.sunlightprojects.org/200...
From Andre Halcro "I was elected in November 1998 to the state house and ran as a Republican. At the time, Veco was a big contractor and even to this day they are the ‚backbone of the people. They had built themselves up into this special interest group and they helped first time campaigners and got them to lean on their funding.
My real experience with them was two days after getting elected Veco had had a fundraising luncheon for me and raised about $3,000 which was 10 percent of [my] total contributions. We were to choose the party leadership that day and I get a call from Bill Allen who says, “Pete Kott should be chosen as the Speaker.” I said that this was inappropriate and he bluntly told me that he had given me money when I was campaigning.
Halcro believes that he was not the only one Veco contacted during the period and that company officials also approached other first-term legislators."
"These guys wanted a $700 million tax credit on an oil tax and they didn’t want it to be more than 20 percent but it was finally set at 22.5 percent with a possibility of an increase. In my last year [in the state house] 2002, Bill Allen and Rick Smith, who were not registered as lobbyists, lobbied for the tax bill and were fined. So, they came back the next year and changed the law in 2003. They were so brazen about it. They would even pass notes over the balcony."
Here is what Halcro says about the current regulations.
"Halcro added that Alaska’s government was ill-equipped to prevent the scandal."
"The main problem is that the internal public watchdog process in the state is under funded and for 10 years, the Republicans have been in power there has been no tightening of campaign finance regulations."