Comments (21)

SteveBreeze wrote on January 9, 2007 5:53 PM:

WOOO HOOOOO!!!
There is nothing more important to the health of democracy then takeing the hireing desicions out of the hands of the welathy and the corporate.!!!

nofltwlt wrote on January 9, 2007 8:26 PM:

Wow, I really like what Dems are doing during the first 100 hours. Public financing of campaigns will pull the pillar on which the GOP relies, right out from under them.

oleeb wrote on January 9, 2007 10:50 PM:

I certainly hope this is true. If public financing comes in, the influence of corporate America will be severely limited in comparison to the past 30 years. That will mean politicians (even Republicans) will begin responding to what the public (and not their financial backers) are concerned about. It isn't a panacea but it is a necessary first step to getting our democracy back.

MJ wrote on January 10, 2007 3:48 AM:

I love the idea of public financing. This is an issue, however, that can take heat from both sides of the aisle. Dems and Reps are both entrenched in the current system and neither is exempt from pressure from their campaign contributors who have a vested interest in opposing public financing, be it unions, trial lawyers, or corporations. Additionally, public support for public financing is not there yet, considering a recent proposition in the state of CA that would have implemented this system went down in flames in the last election. This will be an uphill battle and Sen. Durbin may experience dissent within his own ranks.

nineteen84 wrote on January 10, 2007 9:51 AM:

This is an extremely important development.

If we are to deliver our republic from the influence of our greedy, conscience-less corporations this is absolutely required. Good work Sen. Durbin!

TrueLiberal wrote on January 10, 2007 10:10 AM:

This is just "protecting the incumbent"
legislation. Another way to scam money from taxpayers. Look at the dishonesty in Congress now with the Reid real estate "investments", Jefferson bribery "cold cash", H. Clinton windfall "investment", B. Clinton sale of the WH and pardons etc... . Public financing is just like Union support of politicians without the members consent. It won't move corp money out of the system. It will just move it into the pockets directly Vs into campaigns. Where do you think MoveOn money comes from? Soros is a greedy corp crook of the highest order. Ask the Bank of England.

Marcus wrote on January 10, 2007 11:00 AM:

No, public campaign financing will not work for the same reason it never really works- candidates can choose not to accept public funds.

My idea, on the other hand, would work beautifully yet it stands little chance of even being proposed on any stage excepting this one.

It's simple... federally mandated campaign spending caps. STRICT spending caps. I'm talking to the tune of no more than 5 million TOTAL for a national campaign, 2 million for a state campaign, less than 1 million for county or regional campaigns, and downward.

My plan for campaign finance addresses many of the demons prevalent in modern politics. Candidates would be forced to spend money wisely, possibly foregoing endless smear campaigns in favor of getting an actual message to the people. Campaigns could be considerably shortened from the currently obscene two year-plus runs for national office, possibly ensuring that our elected officials actually spend more time governing than campaigning. Special interest influence would be drastically reduced. And, God forbid, candidate pools would be expanded outside of the ranks of the privileged to include people who may actually be qualified to lead.

Should my plan gain momentum and somehow become law, I promise that I will rein in the two dozen or so monkeys that flew out of my butt and are currently terrorizing farmers in Nebraska. Truly I will.

B W wrote on January 10, 2007 11:14 AM:

Public Campaign : Clean Money Clean Elections

http://www.publicampaign.org/

M-L Refschneider wrote on January 10, 2007 11:33 AM:

Hurray! This is the only way our country will return to it's intended democracy by making it possible for the non-wealthy to run for office and represent the average citizen, the majority.

ohiomeister wrote on January 10, 2007 4:21 PM:

I think TrueLiberal shortens to Troll.

Durbin's legislation isn't even introduced yet, and the Maine and AZ systems are actually among the most anti-incumbent around.

Marcus, your plan has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it would require a constitutional amendment -- not gonna happen.

Tern et Looz wrote on January 10, 2007 7:32 PM:

Public funding of elections campaigns would be a large stride toward reclaiming democracy for the people. However, we progressives at the ground level will have to raise hell to get the attention of the legislators. Otherwise, it ain't going to happen.

The reason Prop 89 went down in flames in California was because the entrenched, short sighted leadership of the Cal State Democratic Party did not support it. The Dems did not take a position on Prop 89 on their official ballot recommendation. The chickens acted like it didn't exist. In addition, there were the phoney Democratic recommendation fliers saying to vote "NO". Not surprisingly, the Repubs recommended a "NO" vote, as well. It is no wonder Prop 89 failed!

Earlier, a similar bill moved through the Cal state legislature with fairly strong Democratic backing and typical Republican opposition to democracy, but it was eventually held up in committee by a couple of sell-out Democrats.

So, I'm elated that Senator Durbin is going to introduce a bill for public funding of elections campaigns, and I will donate (from CA) to his campaign next cycle. However, we must recruit all our friends and neighbors to raise our voices if we want this to make real headway.

Robert Beal wrote on January 10, 2007 8:24 PM:

Good midwestern stock.

Marcus wrote on January 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

"Marcus, your plan has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it would require a constitutional amendment -- not gonna happen."

Are you referring to the "United States Constitution, vol. 1" or the "Gee Dub re-issue?" It could make a difference.

Although, I suppose you are correct about the poor likelihood of a constitutional amendment regarding this issue. Constitutional amendments should be reserved for specifically denying segments of our population equal rights and protections, not for fixing horrifically flawed systems.

My plan still rocks. It's the rest of the world that's messed up.

cecilBK wrote on January 11, 2007 12:46 PM:

Marcus: How exactly do you expect to communicate with 150-200 million voters on a $5 million budget?

Spending caps are unconstitutional unless they are voluntary--i.e. agree to spending caps in exchange for public funding.

Here's my question: when did people stop talking about free TV time for political campaigns? We should be doing less to reduce the supply of money in campaigns, and more to reduce the demand for money.

Marcus wrote on January 11, 2007 1:56 PM:

Ohhhh, that's simple. For starters, you do not run a years worth of campaign ads and smear campaigns. In fact, with such a small amount of spendable funds, you don't run smear campaigns at all. You convey your message, period. You use the news for free coverage. You hoof it across the country spending time talking to voters rather than Mr. and Mrs. Fat Wallet at $1,000/plate dinners. You campaign by bus, not private plane. You utilize volunteers, not paid armies of campaigners. You campaign like most people live- on a budget. You optimize how you spend your money or move on.

The Constitution says nothing about no restrictions on campaign funds. If it is a question of free speech, I believe that is arguable. Also arguable is the constitutionality of a system of democratic government that locks out all but the wealthiest of the wealthy, who serve no person or institution except those that placed them in power. It is supposed to be "of the people, for the people," not "of the wallet, for the bottom line."

Like I said, public financing does not work because candidates simply refuse to accept public financing. Unless, of course, public financing is mandatory. And that, the argument may go, is unconsitutional.

tpaynesmith wrote on January 20, 2007 2:54 PM:

Public financing takes the lion's share of control out of the hands of corporations - many publicly held - and places it into the hands of the state. It's a recipe for an even worse situation than we've been going along with all this time.

Marcus is right. We need a constitutional ammendment. It's been done before. It's not impossible, unless you're willing to go along with believing that it is.

Angela wrote on January 23, 2007 9:19 PM:

Senator Durbin is blogging live on Daily Kos tonight after the SOTU. I personally am going to thank him for taking public financing of elections to the next level.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2007 5:51 PM:

Comments here betray a misunderstanding of how public financing works. The systems in Maine and Arizona are voluntary, hence withing the scope of the constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

I noticed one comment said public financing favors the incumbent and one said it was anti-incumbent. The beauty of public financing is that it levels the playing field! It does not favor incumbent or challenger, which is a change from the current system, which heavily favors incumbents. Under public financing, both candidates get identical funding.

Also, it is not necessary for all candidates to accept public financing to make it work. If even one accepts it, the brakes are put on all the other candidates because they know that the more they spend, the more the publicly funded candidate will get. And voters get at least one candidate to vote for who's truly independent of the money machine.

Bonnie wrote on January 25, 2007 5:54 PM:

The 5:51 comment went anonymous by mistake. Here's who I am:

Marc Thomas wrote on February 23, 2007 7:46 PM:

I, Marc Thomas, a Baptized Christian and a Conservative Republican, strongly believe in having free/clean elections in all three levels of our government (local, state, and federal). It's not one dollar one vote. It's one person one vote. Money doesn't win elections, people do. That is why I strongly encourage all of the members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass this piece of legislation and I hope they do.

ma31zda wrote on December 11, 2007 7:52 PM:

c458t