Why does a lineup of important political flunkies in a letter to the editor remind me of CLUE? For those uninitiated, CLUE is the Hasbro board game centered on solving a crime by entering various rooms of a mansion and asking questions of fellow players about clues, or in the CSI world evidence chain of custody. Sadly Hasbro has done away with Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum, the revolver and the lead pipe in one of those marketing decisions that attempt to rebrand classics with the usual disastrous results.
Meanwhile, Governor Rell in Hartford with a paring knife, has recommended that the legislature does something with that pesky public financing of campaigns law. You know, the one that was successfully attacked as unconstitutional via lawsuit by the Green Party in Federal Court with a Lawyer. Defending the public financing of campaigns, Attorney General Dick Blumenthal with the appeal and a tap dance.
Rell’s plea to reform the law, and strip money from it has rallied local Dems, sort of left behind the whole Norwalk on the move towards transparent government thing, to stage a public meeting. At least according to a letter to the editor published in The Hour.
So on Monday, Dec. 7, at 7 p.m., there will be a public meeting in the Community Room at Norwalk City Hall at which State Reps. Peggy Reeves, Bruce Morris and Chris Perone will opine. But according to former Common Council Candidate, Kate Tepper, where is State Senator Bob Duff? And doesn’t State Rep Larry Cafero warrant a mention? Like the dude might be Governor one day, so where does he stand on this campaign issue, in the community room with a budget deficit?
The City of Norwalk calendar does not speak of this meeting in the Community Room. So how can this be a properly noticed public meeting of something?
But here’s the really, really good question about public money used for campaigns. Last year State Rep Bruce Morris received $7500 in public finance funds. In February of 2009 he returned $1,579.99 of it. Half of the original $7500 he apparently spent on GOTV (Get Out The Vote) wages. In an unopposed race. Now for the really really good question. Why was public tax payer money was used to pay for GOTV wages in an unopposed race? Isn’t it a fair question to ask if the work done by these GOTV workers was limited to exclusively work on Morris’ campaign? Who will answer this? Who will pose the question as this supposedly public meeting about campaign finance?
Yes there needs to be a good discussion of the campaign finance law, but it would help if the purpose of it, isn’t spun into this mythical tale of public money prevents corruption by lobbyists, when the Federal courts have actually said it is unfair to minority parties, and we have an example of wasteful spending on unopposed races. Call it concerned taxpayer in a bankrupt state with the facts.
As someone who ran for Common Council in the last municipal election (and lost), I am very concerned about how campaigns are funded. I spend just under $1,000.00 on my campaign, and raised only $475.00. The rest came out of my pocket. At that rate, the annual pay for the position, after taxes, would have barely covered the cost of the campaign. (And I ran as a “major party” candidate.
The costs to run for office are awfully high, even in one district in Norwalk. To run citywide are significantly higher, and it goes up from there for State Rep and State Senate I am sure.
I encourage all of our elected State officials to find a way to improve this law, and create campaign finance law that makes it more reasonable for any candidate that wishes to run to be able to afford it, and will level the playing field for candidates from major and minor parties alike.
To make the most of our system of government, we need to include as many ideas as possible, and improving this law makes that easier.
I have no problem with making or changing laws to make running for public office an option for any citizen, but I have a problem with said public officials *expecting* to be *paid* to serve their communities. Paying people to serve in public office is usually where corruption gets its foothold. Not only that, but it also creates an atmosphere in which a person would run for an office specifically because of what it will pay them to hold it, versus a person who might want to take office simply to serve the community. Honest, forthright and upstanding candidates could easily get pushed to the sidelines because of aggressive candidates who want nothing more than to collect a government-funded paycheck while they cut corners for their lobbyist pals.
So….you decide to run for office and I should pay for that why? Why dont you try this…walk around, knock on doors, go to public events state your case and get the people who support what you believe in to support you! If you knock on my door and we discuss your goals for the state and local goverment AND we agree I may give you a check, and I also may give you my vote! Then I will tell my friends to vote for you because we have similar concerns and values. But no I do not want to fund your campaign opposed or otherwise just because you feel a pressing need to run. Its a JOB my friend, campaigning is the interview process, impress me and promise to be accountable to me and I will help you. As for Mr. Morris taking money for an unopposed candidacy…that is shameful, its WRONG WRONG WRONG!!, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, there oughta be a law!
I agree with Chris D that reform needs to happen. The system just keeps getting more broken if we do nothing. It is prohibitively expensive for the average Joe to finance a campaign. They must become beholden to many special interest groups in order to raise the capital needed to run. Then , if they happen to get elected, they have to start almost immediately to raise capital for a re-election run, all of which takes time & energy away from them doing what they were elected to do.
Do we really have a representative form of government when the people in power are only those wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns? The status quo has other repercussions as well. The money grab is what (IMHO) has kept a true third party from emerging as a viable alternative to our current “frick or frack” form of government.
A political campaign, at whatever level, should be about ideas and philosohies of governance, not who has the best fund-raising capabilities. Elections should be about what the people want, not self-serving special interests.
You’re right there.
For an extreme example, there is no no need to look any further than the reported $102 million that Bloomberg spent on his reelection as mayor of NYC. Not sure if that even includes the largesse that was donated to various recipients by his corporation.
By the way, thanks to TG for a past post about Lawrence Lessig / Change Congress. I’ve become a big fan.
There’s a bunch of issues that concern the money in politics and government right now. The endless campaign cycle is one of them. The idea that lobbyists have more influence on government is another. But it’s even more unrealistic to expect that government can be done on the cheap either by part time legislators or by compensating the positions so poorly. The whole system is broken.
The first area I’d address is the length of campaigns, scale them back to reasonable time periods 8 weeks, say, and require all the media to give the same amount of time or print space to all candidates to present their messages. Get the money out of it and make it equal time.
Rose -
I wanted to run for Common Council, before I discovered that it pays $600.00 a year. The money wasn’t the reason I did it, and for $600.00 that isn’t much of an incentive. On the other hand, it can be argued that a city might get a better caliber of candidate of the positions were compensated that same as a private sector job.
Jill -
Knocking on doors is the key to winning a local election, but to be most effective, a candidate needs to have hand-out to leave with constituents, and lawn signs to re-enforce the name recognition. Mailers are a good reinforcement as well, and those cost money. As I indicated, I spend almost $1000.00 on my campaign, and spent 85% of that on hand-out and lawn signs, I did no mailers of my own, because I did not have the budget. our form of government requires representatives to run for office, and unless there is some way to balance the field, it will most likely come down to the one with the most $$$ will win.
It has been brought to my attention that my post here may be construed in a way I did not intend. Please allow me a moment to clarify…
I, as a candidate, had no budget for an individual mailing. The Democratic Party did do mailings, that included information about me, as well as my fellow candidates. This was funded by they party, and not by me, or any candidate committee. Additionally, of the $475.00 mentioned above, $375.00 was one donation from District D, which is the maximum the current campaign finance laws allow from a PAC of that type to a campaign committee for a Common Council Candidate.
The party was very fair with contributions to individual campaign committees, but the general public was being more conservative with the discretionary income when it came to donations to campaigns (at least in my experience).
My point was, even with me receiving the largest donation allowed by law from the District, and being included on a citywide mailing, that was paid for by the party, I still spent approximately $525.00 of my own money to run for a position that pays only $600.00 per year (before taxes).
It makes me wonder how many qualified candidates walk away from the whole thing when they do some basic arithmetic and realized there was a good chance that in addition to their time, they stood to be out of a good amount of their hard-earned money. There needs to be some way to balance out the system.
Turfie you’ve raised the conundrum that stirs this whole debate. How does one set time limits and access limits for election campaigns without government setting the limits and the far right screaming their heads off about yet still MORE government intrusion? Wouldn’t this feed their “socialism” frenzy? Would our Bigelow tea factory get raided by the torchlit mobs and the tea dumped on the steps of City Hall? Could I get even MORE carried away?
Barnstorm: It is a conundrum, starting with the question about what is free speech. I don’t think paid advertising is free speech, therefor it can be regulated. I point to cigarette and alcohol advertising, both of which are regulated. An election should have a season, just like the NFL or MLB. I don’t think it is unreasonable to set a time period for that season.
Paid advertising is free speech, within the confines of libel, decency, etceteras… And commercial speech is treated differently under the law from political speech.
There is a more practical problem with trying to set a schedule for a campaign: it affords a tremendous advantage to incumbents. One of the reasons that campaigning starts early is the need for unknown candidates to become known. We already have the experience of watching our Governor and her predecessor spending taxpayer dollars for campaign ads thinly disguised as PSA’s for tourism, or 911, or what have you. And a sitting elected official has an insurmountable advantage over a private individual with no public position to avail himself of “earned media” – all he has to do is open his mouth in a meeting and he’s off and running [pun intended].
The law currently on the books for state-level races is flawed, but to be sure we are seeing the wisdom of the intent to level the playing field. The bar for fund raising is meaningfully high, as recent aspirants to certain State Legislative, and the current aspirants for constitutional office can no-doubt attest. Meeting the requirements for qualifying and being truly viable at a convention, in a primary, and in a general election, is beyond a two-year long project.
Finally, look at what the key criteria now include for viability for the US Senate this cycle, and last: above all, the ability to self-fund is crucial. The Governor’s race is on the edge of being similarly situated.
Rose:
Are you suggesting that folks like the mayor should work the hours that job requires without being paid ? Regardless of the party, that would pretty much limit the job to people who were independently wealthy and create a true “ruling class” of wealthy citizens, as opposed to what we have now where even people of limited means can, at least, aspire for such elected positions. It has gotten to be a fact of life that only those who have, or can raise, big money can get elected. It has been a long time since Norwalk had mayors who worked full time jobs or ran businesses and ran for the part-time job of mayor. Many small towns have part-time elected mayors and paid, full time, city managers.
OT, that’s a very good question, and one that I’m hard-pressed to actually answer.
My gut reaction was to say that I don’t think ANYONE should be paid, going right on up to the office of president – but then your question about limiting public office to the people who can actually afford to run a campaign comes in.
On the other hand, however, if we pay people for getting elected to public office, how can one draw the line at electing people who truly have a mission to serve, instead of electing people who are in the game solely for what they think they can financially gain from it, and who could not care less for the city, state, or country other than what money they can put in their own pockets?
And then you have the question of people who are running their own businesses or who are employed and making a tidy enough income so that being required to abandon said income keeps them from running for office in the first place? For example, each time a mayoral election comes up there are rumors that a highly-respected local politician seriously wants to run for the office but holds back because a 6-figure salary stands between the office and the politician. If this rumor is even remotely true, then our city loses a potentially excellent mayor because they can’t possibly be paid the same amount of money for holding office that they can make in the private sector. Either way, we all lose.
It seems to be one of those Catch-22 situations.
Here is a letter to the editor of the Hour, from one of the city’s two registrars of voters that breaks down voter trends for the last municipal election, and gives some round numbers on monies spent by the candidate pool…
http://thehour.com/story/479251
I thought it might be a good way kind of close this thread.