There are not many things that absolutely everyone can agree on and the appropriate responsibilities of a democratic government is no exception. But I believe one of those responsibilities that we all can agree on is making the machinery of democracy work, in other words supporting the fundamental processes and logistics that allow a democracy to function.
Yet today there is a crucial element of our democratic process not supported by our democratic government; election campaigns. Election campaigns are funded by the wealthy; large corporations, wealthy individuals, or special-interest organizations.
We see our government faithfully advocate for the wishes of these entities, frequently in preference to own wishes. And actually, we’re smart enough not to wonder why. Our elected representatives are chosen and put in place by those funders, and we are not those funders. Logic dictates that they will more faithfully represent their funders, those whom without whose support they could not even ask for their voter’s support.
Prop 89 fixes this, while still deriving its funding from the corporations that support it now.
I think Prop 98 is worth going to the polls for, and even worth trying to get other people to go to the polls for, so I thought it was worth passing along some information.
About Prop89
Prop 89 is a California Ballot Proposition on the November 2006 ballot. It establishes a format for public-funding of election campaigns. It’s paid for by an increase in the corporate tax from 8.9% to 9.1%. It costs 0.02% of the state’s budget.
Candidates who chose to qualify agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources. Candidates will qualify as “Clean Money Candidates,” or “participating” candidates, and receive a public grant for the primary and general elections, if they are successful in raising a required number of $5 contributions and signatures of support from residents within the district they hope to represent.
Candidates who qualify for Clean Money funding will get the average dollar amount spent by those seeking that office in recent elections. One great advantage to the system is that participating candidates will no longer have fundraising expenses, no selling tickets to $1000/plate dinners. So, Clean Money candidates can focus on discovering and fullfilling their voters wishes intead of their campaign-funders.
It empowers candidates with no personal wealth or access to big financial contributors - but who have a proven base of public support - the means to compete for office with the “usual suspects.”
So I see Prop 89 as a sort of a covert takeover of the government by the people at a ground-root level, because that’s where it’s broken. Once “we the people” are the ones paying for people to get in office and represent us, they will start doing that. And if we’re not paying for it, we can’t expect to be well represented out of corporate good-will for its consumers.
So if you don’t vote for anything else on the ballot go out and vote yes on Prop 89. It’s a no-brainer that could fundamentally improve our democracy, imo.
California Clean Money Campaign
Update:
PBS is airing this special on Clean Elections.
Update: Prop 89 was sorely defeated, like 75% against. I’m confused. Any insight would be appreciated.