Clean Money
Councilman Eric Garcetti blogs :Full public financing of elections is on its way! By an 11-0 vote, the City Council passed the motion that I introduced with Bill Rosendahl and Wendy Greuel. City staff have 90 days to create an opt-in system that will allow candidates to forgo private donations in exchange for a set amount of public campaign funds; then the full program will come back for another vote. Public financing gives elected officials a chance to put down the phone with fundraisers and spend more time addressing the needs of the community. And I'd rather devote my attention to our city's deep potholes than to its deep pockets.
Given the developments mentioned in this post, I am skeptical of the results. But kudos to the three for at least making the effort.
Posted by Anonymous @ 11/17/2005 06:40:00 AM
38 Comments:
Clean money is a great idea. It's the only way to take special-interest money out of politics, so we can elect people whose only interest is the public interest.
Is this the latest pic of AA meetings on Wednesdays?
Or
The Gay & Lesbian Leadership?
:::::))))))
Huizar the Weasel spent over half a million. Could not have won without it? VillarAyeQueBozo will protect his mijo and never allow a level playing field. MINI ME WEASEL would come in behind a Juan Johnny J Jimenez in a 'CLEAN MONEY ELECTION'
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb311760.htm
8:58 a.m.
Once all the final reports are in, Huizar and company will have collected and spent closer to $1 million than the half-million you mention, inc. matching and IEs. (No way to factor in the costs of Alvin Parra et al.'s off-the-books, unattributed smear campaign).
If there had been a runoff, they would have all gladly thrown in another half-million.
All that for a 19-month position.
How important was this race?
Look where the money came from (90+ percent not from the Eastside) and then look at the committee assignments awaiting the winner of the CD14 fill-in position.
And THEN, follow the money. . .
Wow, this is for real?
To really take money out of elections would be un-American!
8:58, 9:41 - Did Nick Pacheco turn away campaign contributions? NO. If he had the financial backing Huizar received would he have taken it? Yes Each and every one of those candidates would have taken the money, and they do in every other council race.
Walter, the problem is that this won't eliminate special interest money. Remember, the most an individual or corp can give to a council race is $500. Chump change. This will do nothing but encourage special interests to utilize independent expenditures - independent amounts of money spent on behalf of a candidate or against their opponent.
I like, I like very much...I like the new picture ubrayj02. Me gusta.
John Robert Stevens
must be put in jail!
John Robert Stevens
must be put in jail!
John Robert Stevens
must be put in jail!
John Robert Stevens
must be put in jail!
10:12 - find another place to post on your issues. then get some professional treatment.
10:23 Your friend John R Stevens is in desperate need of this professional help you speak of. You are a disgrace to disagree with the law when the law is clear. You commit a crime, you do the time. No special treatment.
Mayor Sam... was looking at the photo.
Is that Jim Alger on the left wearing a tie??? Sure does look like him, but he never wears ties, always Mr. Turtleneck.
10 a.m.
They all do it or they all would do it.
Then everything must be right in the world.
Why bother. Scrap the clean money concept. Hell, scrap elections. Let's just see who can raise the most campaign money and call them the winner (pretty much how it goes, anyway). Then they can stop making printers, mailing houses, and campaign consultant whores rich and just donate everything raised (after its counted, of course), to the people down on skid-row.
The best way to reform campaigns is just not have them. Just count the money!
Did the people of CD14, who gave less than 15 cents of every dollar spent for this special council election REALLY decide the outcome, or did the 5 times as many donors from outside the district "speak" for them?
Was CD14's "voice" heard, or did the IEs and other big money interests shout them down with bigger bucks?
Shut down the blog. No point criticizing what "works" (assuming "our guy" wins).
Marxism
This is are only hope.
Why not just lower the limits on contributions from outside the "area" covered by the election (district, city, county, etc).
$500 inside (district)- max (same as current); $100 outside district (but inside city/county) - max; $50 from outside - max, per contributor.
And IEs can only take part in elections if they can show they have legitimate "stakeholders" in the jurisdiction, and only to the extent they do (something pro-rated; based on local union membership, employment at local offices of the corp. entity, etc.).
Then, only "local" contributions qualify for matching funds.
Politicians would have to spend a lot more time INSIDE the area soliciting, and less outside in order to make up the difference -- which would give more locals access and cut down on outside influence.
Contributors have to ID already, give addresses, etc. The tracking is already built in.
OH, and then triple the damn fines for violations.
Private schools.
This is OUR only hope.
11:05 - while I understand and agree with the intent of your idea, it would never pass constitutional muster.
You mean the same constitution that determined "one man, one vote?"
So why can't some guy who lives in Riverside bring his "one vote" to L.A. whenever he wants to... but he CAN send his $500 to influence how others vote here?
I would be interested to know how other cities handle campaign contributions. We need something to compare and the successes or failures. I don't think this clean money concept will fly here in LA. We have too many corrupt politicans.
Look, if I do business in LA, pay taxes in LA, contribute to the job market by providing residents jobs in LA, I think that I should be able to to make a monetary contribution to a candidate of my choice in the amount equal to anyone else.
"So why can't some guy who lives in Riverside bring his "one vote" to L.A. whenever he wants to... but he CAN send his $500 to influence how others vote here?"
Because the right to vote is based on residency. The right to speech is not. You cannot limit my right to say on a billboard or in a commercial that Candidate A is better than Candidate B.
In addition, a City like LA has broader interests than just residents; Should we prohibit non-residents, like businesses, schools, religious institutions, etc. from petitioning City Hall or taking a stance on a proposed city ordinance? Should only residents be given the right to speak at city committee hearings or council meetings?
So under "clean money" the residents, pay the bulk of the freight. . .
How's that different?
The Supreme Court rules EVERY day that "LIMITING something (including "free speech") is not the same thing as DENYING it."
When I go to speak at City Council, I get 2 minutes, tops. Is that DENYING?
Our elected representatives CEASE to represent us when more money flows into their campaign coffers from OUTSIDE the area of representation than from within.
That, simply put, is a form of taxation without representation... also forbidden by the constitution.
What about the city pays for 4 televised debates. One month campagn season. Let's get to the vote no time to raise money. Each candidate gets $25K. No IE's. No VillariBoza.
Alvin Parra has a problem. His family can't afford to raise this kind of money.
And what, no "endorsements"??
IT AIN'T ALVIN PARRA....!
Damn, people, he GOT his payoff for past dirty work. The little woman's on a comission now.
END OF STORY! He's UN-electable, PERIOD. He forced a RECALL in his OWN little neighborhood council, as the #2, and STILL couldn't get his homies to make HIM the president after it was all said and done.
He STAYED #2.
DOH!!! Lead the revolution, and the BEST you can get is the same damn volunteer job you had BEFORE.
Double DOH!
Having the city pay for televised debates that include all candidates is a GREAT idea. That would almost be better than clean money; it would certainly be simpler to administer. Admittedly, some time would be "wasted" on unqualified candidates, but that's a small price to pay considering what we get under the status quo.
Clean money is the best thing that can happen to Los Angeles.
To 11:49 -
If you are interested in clean money, you should attend the meetings and learn more about them and what states use the system.
It's not "taxpayer" money. It's money (appr. $5) that the candidates collected along with signatures (appr. 1000) to get them on the ballot. They then give that money to the state. They have a year to do that. So you could support all 7 candidates in your district if you wanted to.
If because of the First Amendment, a candidate decides to opt out and not be a clean money candidate, there is nothing that can be done. However, the percentage of voters is so small that they will be on to that "rich" candidate scam within the first couple of years.
Everybody who has good idea would have a chance to run for office and instead of being elected based on the number nasty mailers you've mailed, you will have to actually be able to debate the other candidates.
If candidate A does a mailer, then candidate B, C and D also get one. If D does a commercial, then A, B and C get the same money to do one.
This is completely fair and that is why I fear it will never work in the most corrupt city in America.
Watch Arizona. They just hired their first clean money governor a couple of years ago. One millionaire opted out and pumped his own money in... to no avail. The rest of the clean money candidates had the same amount of air time and mailers as the other candidates did. The people of Arizona chose not to elect the millionaire.
Who loses with Clean Money? The candidates who are supported by unions, developers and lobbyists. The campaign consultants who won't make as much money. The television stations who won't sell as much air time.
Who wins? The voting population and the city of L.A.
So Alger didn't really leave us. Since nobody could possibly recognize anyone in that picture, it could only have been written by Alger himself. Who else would be enlarging the picture to see who is involved in clean money?
*NEWSFLASH*
Major Blow to Alex Padilla: The president failed to garner the support and endorsement of LA City & County Fire Departments.
3:46
"However, the percentage of voters is so small that they will be on to that 'rich' candidate scam within the first couple of years."
And what? They'll vote against that person? Not hardly... people only get bothered by "dirty" money in campaigns when the OTHER guys has it. When it's their boy, it's call "good networking and "consensus building" and "proof of voter support" and other tripe like that.
A week before the special election, the Times reported that Huizar had raised 90+ percent of his funds from outside his district, and tons of it came from westside developers.
Did anyone mind? Did anyone question this aberration vs. his "open space" positions and AV's endorsement as the "squeaky clean and ethical" new mayor?
Nope. They applauded him as the "TOP" money raiser and said that proved he was the best candidate, and should win (and thanks to a half-million in non-local monies, he DID!
All it will take is for "clean money" candidates to get short-changed against a "rich" candidate using traditional fundraising and the only players left on the "clean money" wagon train will be radical third party gadflies who would still be lucky if they got family members to vote for them.
If it's "optional" it's useless.
And, just wait until the hordes that make their money off campaign fundraising start THEIR campaign against it... it'll be like the Arnold "props" backlash. I can hear the spin now -- "The City Council is trying to STIFLE your voice and NOT ALLOW you to contribute to the candidate of your choice." "They want to prop up lesser candidates who have no experience or following with funds they could NEVER earn from supporters on their own." "They're creating a false sense of equality among candidates and boosting useless third party endeavors."
This sucker will get so watered down by provisos and amendments that no one but extremist wackos on both ends of the spectrum will bother to use it.
3:46 p.m.,
Wow, that sounds amazing.
I would attach to this clean money thing a movement to make registering to vote, and the act of voting itself, much easier than it currently is.
Watch out Los Angeles. New York City has an extremely progressive campaign finance system and it has resulted in many unintended consequences.
They include:
1.) Elected officials in uncompetitive districs earning big matching fund paychecks (which are spent on cars, computers, etc)
2.) Big payouts to nonviable candidates who design entire campaigns around the idea of earning public money
3.) City campaigns being more focused than ever on fundraising and compliance so they can earn their matching checks
Tread lightly, freeway dwellers!
To Westsider and the last poster:
Spoken like true campaign consultants.
Some people look at the glass and see it as half empty and some see it as half full, remember?
Don't look at New York or GOD FORBID - the Westside.
Look at Arizona.
Ubray - it's a bandwagon to jump on, trust me.
Westsider used to post for Antonio for Mayor 2005 Blog...Ace
So One would assume that "clean money" would have to be policed by someone.
City Ethics Commission?
(Not hardly they're already under fire for Weiss' slap on the wrist -- political appointees all. Did Daddy Garcetti get his own wrist slapped for breaking the very rules HE's supposed to police?)
That means you have to add ANOTHER layer of government or that oversight (appointed by whom?)
How many layers of foxes will we need in order to effectively guard the proverbial Hen House?
And at what point does it cost more to appear "clean" that just tighten existing rules and regulations (and actually enforce them)?
Good job Eric. Let's get back to your real focus and continuing re-naming communities after different nationalities and cultural groups. I mean really, we have to be politically correct and celebrate diversity. Come on there are more illegal immigrants we have to reward.
Isn't funny, that we reward lawbreaker will come to our city and illegally steal our services. But we jail those citizens who break the law for writing a bad check to feed their families because there's nothing left from the public services to aid them.
It all seems so odd to me. I don't understand why I don't get it.
If we didn't have all the illegal students in our schools, hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, welfare system, low cost housing, etc. maybe we would have enough to pay for those on skid row to obtain the assistance they deserve and need. Maybe the quality of life for so many of them would be better. Especially the veterans who I meet who are homeless and the mentally ill who I watch daily talking to themselves.
But then again that wouldn't be politically correct to profile the lawbreakers who are illegal.
So let's introduce a public finance of elections so you don't have to raise money and waste your time because you want the status quo.
Oh, and let's put a lid on what should be spent on a election so anyone running against you can get their name out there in the public more than yours...
What an ass you are. But maybe we are the asses for allowing you to do it.
Huizar doesn't like Clean Money!
Huizar is out in two years!
With Clean Money, you don't have to limit anybody! You are bringing "Clean Money" where only "Big Money" has gone before...
Clean Money WORKS in Arizona and Maine and the public approves of it.
Politicians say that it allows them to focus on their communities and not on the deep pocketed sponsors.
Lobbyists have no affect on Cleanly Elected politicians. With Clean Money, politicians can decide for themselves if a lobbyist has a constituency worth listening to. No "limits" are necessary.
Independant Expenditures against or for a candidate give Clean Money candidates an immediate deposit of a dollar for dollar match to reply to the IEs.
Don't get confused. Get the facts...
You're witnessing the birth of the next step of Democracy.
There was a time when all roads were "privately funded" too. That's how our elections are now. Sound attractive? Clean money is ready to fix that now...
Uninfluenced politicians, like completely "influence free" public roads, serve the economic and public good.
Hop on board or you will be left smacking your head and saying "duh"...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home