|
Moneyed
political system drives budget extravagances (.pdf version)
By:
Jack E. Lohman
Why is it any surprise that the state's budget
deficit is over $2 billion and growing? The reason should be pretty clear:
the system is designed that way.
Legislators spend money because they are paid
to spend money. Not by you and I, but by the special interests who want
laws passed that divert taxpayer cash, tax breaks and other state assets to
their private coffers. The fat cats then use part of their booty to fund
political campaigns, thus ensuring their future welfare.
It's a corrupt system that works for both the
giver and receiver, but at the expense of the taxpayer. Bad as it is, there
is an easy fix if the Legislature and governor have the will.
If we want to lower taxes and balance the
budget, we must break the link between those who write the checks and those
who write the laws. If politicians are to be beholden to their funders, let
it be the taxpayers.
That's as it is in Maine and Arizona, in both cases put there by voter demand. For less
than $5 per taxpayer per year they totally fund their state electoral
system. The Clean Money system in both states has survived court challenges
because it is voluntary, and candidates may opt for the old system if they
prefer it.
If there are only two kinds of money -- public
and private -- doesn't it make more sense for the taxpayers to fund our
public electoral system and own the government ourselves? Or should private
investors, as it is today?
Think about it.
If you owned a company
and your purchasing manager was taking money on the side -- from both your
vendors and those who want to be -- and then making bad corporate
purchases, wouldn't you put a stop to it?
Of course you would. In the business world we call
it payola and kickbacks. Prosecutors call it bribery and extortion.
Politicians call it free speech and campaign funding. But it's all the
same.
In the business world
we fire these people or have them jailed. In the political world we reelect
them.
Stopping this
corruption would save each taxpayer over $1200 each year by eliminating the
over $4 billion our Legislature doles out each year in corporate welfare.
Even more could be saved once old laws were revisited and the bad ones
repealed.
But the money link must be broken, not merely
bent.
The fix is in...
In Maine and Arizona
the Clean Money system works great. If you want to run for office you
simply acquire a requisite number of constituent signatures, 80% of which
must be accompanied by at least a $5 check. That eliminates frivolous
candidates, and it qualifies you (for the primary) to receive one third of
the funds allocated for that race. (Up to $100 may be given during the
qualifying process, and all monies must be spent on legitimate campaign expenses.
No other private money is allowed.)
If you win the primary you receive the
remaining two thirds, but following the primary you cannot spend any more
private cash, not even your own. If your opponent chooses to run under the
current rules, and outspends you, the public grant provides additional matching funds (which discourages such
practices in the first place).
Lobbyists are still
allowed to lobby; they just can't lobby "public" candidates with
cash in hand. For the fat cats who want to give more, they can give to
those candidates running under the current, moneyed guidelines. Thus, their
"speech" is not inhibited.
Maine and Arizona legislators love their Clean
Money system because private fundraisers have virtually dried up and they
can spend more time with their constituents and families.
Wisconsin should do it right or not do
it at all
Senate Bill 12, a proposal by Sen. Mike Ellis
(R-Neenah), seeks a 45% grant, but it simply doesn't go far enough. It
would leave the fat cats still 55% in control of government, and in fact
would give them a discount on their influence. Our tax money (the 45%)
would be subsidizing the special interests even further than it is today.
A similar system in Minnesota was tried and
failed, and that state's reform community is now seeking a 100% fix.
What Ellis should add -- and the governor
should demand -- is a 100% public funding option for those who agree to
shun private funds. Then let the candidates and voters decide.
Half a loaf
The taxpayers don't want a partially clean
system; they want it totally clean. They want it today and are willing to
fund it. And they won't buy the "budget deficit" as an excuse
because the Clean Money system will return much needed money to the state's
coffers and more than offset its costs.
Besides, if there is any reason to reduce
political corruption, there is every reason to totally eliminate it. A bad
bill is worse than no bill at all, and will delay real reform for years.
Private Money = Public Disgrace
A system that allows
private money to fund political campaigns virtually demands the kind of
conflict of interest that lead to the indictment of five state leaders. Why
legislators want to walk this tightrope and destroy their credibility in
the process is puzzling.
Why business leaders don't put a stop to it is
also puzzling. It is destroying our economy at both the state and federal
level. Their businesses cannot be better off for it. Just look at the
failed health care and tort systems if you are not convinced.
Listen up, folks!
Yea, I've heard the
conservative's arguments: You don't want your tax dollars funding political
campaigns or politicians you don't agree with. But taxpayers already
are funding the elections; they're just doing it through the back door
-- in hidden taxes out of our sacred general fund -- and at hundreds of
times more than if we funded them up front with clean dollars. This is an
investment we can't afford not to make.
And while we accept that the taxpayer should
pay for part of the public electoral system -- voting machines, poll
workers, election oversight boards, and even the politician’s
salaries while they are campaigning and fund raising – the
short-sighted will flatly reject the idea of paying for the one thing that
has totally corrupted the system: campaign funding.
As well, legislators spend money on a lot of
things I don’t like, but they are paid to do it for the common good.
(And sometimes they do.) However, on all spending decisions -- whether I
support the special interests or not -- I’d feel a lot better if I
knew that cash wasn’t changing hands in the process of laws being
drafted and voted upon.
It is because I am a
fiscal conservative that I support full public funding of campaigns. That
is the only way we will curb unnecessary government spending and eliminate
our state and federal budget deficits.
The reality is, no matter what your core
economic or social concern, it is almost always directly traceable to the
special interest money in -- and influence upon -- our political system:
High taxes, sky-rocketing health care costs, exorbitant prescription drug
costs, weak environmental laws and enforcement, under-funding of our
schools, you name it. Follow the money and you’ll ultimately find a
politician.
Welfare for politicians
The Pols also like
to call it "welfare for politicians" to mask their true
opposition, but that's a red herring. Nothing can do more to ensure their
welfare than the current moneyed system that gives them a 16-to-1 cash
advantage over challengers and a 9-to-1 electoral advantage. They like
things just as they are, thank you.
As a 45-year Republican
I'm continually amazed to hear my conservative colleagues complain about
"big government spending" on one hand,
yet on the other they sit idly watching the fat cats fuel the corrupt
system that breeds it. They criticize critical school spending and ignore
corporate welfare abuses.
Will they ever grasp the link? Is this really
what we want to leave our kids?
Conservatives also like
to indict campaign reform as an "infringement on free speech."
But money is a possession; a "thing" not deserving of
constitutional rights. My money or wealth should not be able to be used to
drown out your voice and equal protection under the law.
Besides, when money equals speech, speech will
no longer be free. The way it is today, only those with enough
"speech" in their checkbooks have a voice in government. That's
not the democracy we should fight for.
Lohman is a Milwaukee business owner,
founder of Business Leaders for Campaign Reform, and is on the National
Advisory Board of Public Campaign.
Web sites:
wi-cfr.org
WICleanElections.org
SmokeFreeDining.us
Jack E. Lohman
414-477-8686 (cell)
jlohman@execpc.com
|
