News-Miner Editorial
Tempting, but spendy
State doesn’t need to pay candidates
Published Saturday, August 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Alaskan voters might be tempted to take over the care and feeding of political candidates following all the recent details about how such candidates have sometimes taken extra cash and perks from all-too-willing benefactors.
On Tuesday’s election ballot, measure 3 offers a chance to create a system under which state candidates may voluntarily fund their campaigns with state money, in exchange for a promise to limit spending. We should all take a deep breath before committing to such a plan, though. Would it solve this “corruption” crisis? Not likely. Would cost the state millions? Certainly.
Part of the idea is that, if we pay for campaigns from the public treasury, maybe these guys will stop their unseemly shenanigans. Maybe not. A politician inclined to accept significant cash, gifts or jobs from people who stand to directly gain from his actions already has a moral compass so askew that no amount of public funding could knock it back into alignment.
Humans have an enormous capacity to spend everything they have and then desperately scramble for more. Publicly funded campaigns might give ethically challenged politicians what they need; it will never satisfy what they want. But what about those politicians who refrain from truly sleazy behavior yet still take campaign contributions from parties that stand to gain from government action? Don’t the politicians become so beholden to those contributors that they dare not cross them? Shouldn’t we offer our politicians a higher road?
That’s a highly simplistic line of reasoning.
First, the link between contributions and votes is rarely so direct. Candidates gather contributions from such a wide base that inevitably and often those contributors have conflicting interests in the legislative process. Also, with the caps on individual donations, a single entity has trouble shoveling enough to a candidate to “buy” him.
The “bought” politician is often just an elected official with whom a constituent disagrees so fundamentally that the constituent cannot fathom any explanation other than mere bribery. Many alternative and honorable explanations usually exist.
The design of the public funding proposal on the ballot also raises concerns. Obviously, we don’t want to hand out money to just anyone. So the ballot measure requires the candidate to collect $5 donations from a set number of voters, as a way to gauge support. It could just as easily gauge the ability of an independent special interest to invest with a high rate of return. Ballot Measure 3 is a costly overreaction and deserves a “no” vote.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Ballot measure three will pass handily. The News-Miner is so out of touch with Alaskans.
The kinds of insane public policy decisions made by the Legislature- that have cost Alaskans billions of dollars- were the same ones supported by the News-Miner.
Go ahead, News-Miner, go back to your archives and pull out your editorials that expressed support for the corruption laden PPT. You know- the bill that was passed by politicians now in jail- the one that cost us billions...
The politicians that screwed Alaska so badly only made it into power because of the cash paid out by VECO. There is no better way to improve our representation that by Clean Elections, which will help ensure a level playing field for honest Alaskans seeking to hold public office.
This is pretty much democrat political candidate welfare. Their support from unions must be waning. It will lead to the state paying for the campaigns of people who have little or no public support.
If you have to pay someone to be honest then you'll just be disappointed later.
I respectfully ask that everyone vote no on measure three and let me decide for myself on who I spend money to support. I will extend the same courtesy to each of you.
Crucible and ONAPA, thanks for your comments. Very succinct and right on target.
I'm not voting for this because I dont' think the state's money (the resident's money) should be spent on political canddiates. Just imagining some candidate I think is a crackpot spending public money gets my blood pressure up.
That said, I really don't appreciate being insulted by my local newspaper before 9 in the morning. At least let me drink my coffee first!
"Humans have an enormous capacity to spend everything they have and then desperately scramble for more."
Thanks Newsminer for being condescending to this human that reads your paper.....
How about some option on the PFD application where someone can "check" whether they want to support this less-than-desirable idea? Those of us that don't want to support everyone can keep doin' it our way and those of you who think this will magically reduce corruption in politics, can check it and donate away.
There are free blogs available on the internet.
If a politician can't write a decent free-blog that communicates their ideas well then they will be ineffective in office.
Maybe candidates should be required to do a week of community service for every time they get caught spending any money on a campaign.
The TRUTH is free, just like the daily sunrise..
but Propaganda is expensive to make, buy, sell, and even more expensive to listen to.
Just follow the money trail, and you'll find who is trying to buy your vote.
Not sure why it's showing me as anonymous, so will I.D. myself here: Larry Landry. I've volunteered on behalf of the initiative.
Too costly? Both initiative backers and the State estimate Clean Elections would cost $5-6 million/year. That comes to roughly $9/person/year, but let's call it $15 to be safe. At $14.6 billion or so, this years' State budget came to $22,500/ person. An extra $15 is truly peanuts in comparison, but the benefits--rebuilding faith in the democratic process--enormous.
The opinion is totally off base in saying that public funds will allow greedy people to spend all they want and then coming running back for more. There are absolute limits on how much a candidate can receive.
To suggest that limits on individual campaign contributions make it impossible to "buy" a politician is shockingly naive from a newspaper editorial board. In the political world "bundling" is the name of the game. You get your employees, wife, friends, PAC's to all give to your politician of choice, who know exactly where it is coming from. VECO did this all the time. In the recent Rep. Cowdery indictment, VECO officials were twice recorded as saying that the only way they could influence politicians was " through campaign contributions and fundraisers ".
Would Clean Elections end corruption? Of course not. You can't legislate human nature. But it is far from simplistic thinking
to suggest that public funding will help clean up the system. Money is far too much the name of the game in politics these days. Politicians must spend an enormous amount of time and energy raising money, and common sense tells us that the monied interests which often pony up a large share of the cash expect a return on their investment. As John McCain put it, " any voter with a healthy understanding of the flaws of human nature cannot help but believe we are unduly influenced by our benefactors generosity." All the people that VECO bribed had also received earlier campaign contributions.
Remove the need to raise all that money and you remove the huge leverage that wealthy special interests have over the political process, you make democracy more people centered. In Maine and Arizona, most new candidates say that the availability of public funding strongly influenced their decision to run. Voters in those overwhelmingly support public financing because they seen it work.
For a glowing endorsement of Ballot Measure 3, see yesterday's Anchorage Daily News.
If we don't pay for the "care and feeding" of candidates, who will? VECO, Conoco Phillips, Exxon, BP, Cominco, Unions or lobbyists? I might not like so much that we'll pay for it, but don't mislead me with the "taxpayer" nonsense. I don't pay taxes! I do think that some of the taxes the state gets from these industries should go to reduce their influence on my legislator. DUH!
Right on Larry! Another shameful opinion from the DNM.. Can't blame them however because newspapers in general are on the financial ropes and are selling themselves out all over the country for table scraps from big industry. 5-6 million a year or even 15 million is such a ridiculous drop in the bucket when compared to how much this state has been screwed over by corrupt politicians who shorted us in oil revenues for decades. That amount would be an interesting figure for sure but is incalculable. I am so sick of corrupt politicians who have their butts branded with VECO or BP running this state I could hurl. Hell yes on 3!
"Tempting" ???? This Goes to show you How Far Out Of Touch this NewsPaper is, with the people that lives in the state of Alaska !
I got a Better "IDEA" lets get MORE Outside sources to go over books of the political candidates ever 6 mo., with a Jail-Cell waiting with there Name on it, For cash and perks taken from the "all-too-willing benefactors.
P.S. Get a Jail-Cell for the benefactors too.
Now that would be Good Use of my Tax Money.
"with a Jail-Cell waiting with there Name on it, For cash and perks taken from the "all-too-willing benefactors"
Jail cell? Try tennis courts! Try Club Fed. The federal penal system is 2 tiered and these corrupt bastards don't get put in with the every day bad guys. Look for the outgoing President Bush to have these good old boys pardoned and home for Christmas.
Another thing this initiative will do. It allows the citizens a way to directly take back their government from the bought off representatives and senators in a way that no one governor can do by herself. She has done a good job so far in this regard but there are limits anyone within the system can do. We are very close to going back to business as usual because once the momentum of the outrage wanes and is forgotten there will be little in the way to stop the corruption from once again rearing its ugly head.
This is a Mark Ames election machine. Every republican legislature owes their election to VECO and every republican committee chair and leader owes VECO and the corrupt system they built a thank you. But this wont fix anything.
You may be right riotwo, but we should at least give this a chance.
Please Larry remember that our form of government is not a democracy. We are a republic. And this bill doesn't have limits. As long as the public funded candidate is being out spent by his non public funded rival. And yes that's right this will not require all candidates to be financed by the state. Just like Obama decided to flip and forego public financing so can the state candidates. So this will not stop those who wish to get their funding the old fashion way but it will finance those who can't raise the money to beat them in the real world. Sounds like democrat candidate welfare to me.
Are you kidding me! What sort of twisited logic supports this measure? Vote no on 3. I can't even believe this thing got enough signatures to make the ballot. What were people thinking? If this thing passes we might as well call Anchorage "San Franchorage". Supporters in Fairbanks have got to be the liberal college set..no real Alaskans/Fairbanksons would support this would they?
Larry and lakloey1, you are both wrong...our system of government is a democratic republic; a popular vote of the people (democracy) elects representatives that cast votes for the populace (republic). Ancient Rome, for example, was a republic, but not a democratic republic. Representatives were chosen by the senators themselves.
If anyone can tell me how the current system differs from legalized bribery I would like to hear it. We currently have a system where large donors can finance a candidate, most candidates with the most money win, and incumbents are overwhelmingly reelected. This is a recipe for corruption.
Clean elections are a commonsense solution to the influence racket that is politics today and have been successfully used in other states. Larry is absolutely correct that the cost of clean elections (<$dollars per person per year) is a small price to pay in order to get better legislators with fewer conflicts of interest to manage our multi-billion dollar budget.
You said it all!
Clean Elections adds on to our present system, so if people want to make contributions to privately funded candidates, they can still do so.
The problem we now face is that special interests are gaming our election system in order to get paybacks, favors, money or resources from the state. Our current system rarely gives us a glimpse of the paybacks.
Clean elections is proven to drastically reduce special interest money. Get verifiable info at www.alaskansforcleanelections.org
Clean Elections also provides more competition from more candidates so that more important issues become part of the campaign--and best of all the candidates don't owe anybody any favors.
Voters and candidates love it where it's been around the longest. It's sort of like everyone making sure there's a fire department, except this is a "freedom to not be controlled by special interests department" for our legislature. We owe it to ourselves to try it, there's nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.