The current Secretary of State has stopped the full vetting of registrations in the State. In many cases she does not have a reciprocal agreement to see if voters registered in this State are registered in others. North Carolina just found out that 26,000 of their voters are also registered in other States—and many VOTED twice in 2012. We literally have no idea—and not allowed to know, if the person at the voting booth is the person that is registered.
This is a position for someone based on qualifications, experience and ability. Dan Schnur unlike others does not go along with the crowd—he is direct and honest. Democrats and some Republicans claim if you have a form of public financing of campaigns, you would have honest office holders. Vladimir Putin does not raise money for his campaigns—his races are State sponsored—think he is what we want? Glad to see Dan Schnur on the political trail, telling the truth, not the politically expedient slogan.
“Unfortunately, Senator Darrell Steinberg’s decision to push for public financing of campaigns would make a bad situation much, much worse.
Using public funds to pay for political campaigns has been a subject of debate for many years, most recently in 2006, when approximately three quarters of state voters rejected a ballot initiative on this topic. Most Californians would rather see their hard-earned tax dollars spent on police officers, teachers and firefighters performing valuable public services, rather than on political consultants making negative television commercials.”
Dan Schnur, Candidate for California Secretary of State, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 4/8/14
Even for an essentially oblivious place like the State Capitol, last week was an especially compelling reminder as to the distance that exists between the common sense of California citizens and the silliness of the people elected to represent us.
In the first three months of the calendar year, no fewer than three California State Senators have been arrested, indicted or convicted on a series of felony charges ranging from public corruption to voter fraud to arms trafficking. In a legislative body of 40 members, this qualifies as a crime wave.
Yet none of the three of the legislators in question have been expelled from office. Rather, they have been “suspended”, which means that they continue to draw a taxpayer-funded salary while facing criminal charges. State politicians tried to minimize the problems early on: now they’re scrambling to try to convince the voters that they really are interested in fixing a broken system with a series of half-hearted fig leaf proposals that would make little difference to rein in the fundraising arms raise that is poisoning California politics.
That’s not entirely true. Most of their ideas would have minimal impact, but there is one that would make a huge difference in the daily lives of Californians. Unfortunately, Senator Darrell Steinberg’s decision to push for public financing of campaigns would make a bad situation much, much worse.
Using public funds to pay for political campaigns has been a subject of debate for many years, most recently in 2006, when approximately three quarters of state voters rejected a ballot initiative on this topic. Most Californians would rather see their hard-earned tax dollars spent on police officers, teachers and firefighters performing valuable public services, rather than on political consultants making negative television commercials.
There are a number of political activists in the reform community who genuinely believe that the best way to remove the temptation for politicians to obliterate moral, ethical and legal boundaries in their scramble for campaign cash is to simply eliminate the need for fundraising altogether. They have arrived at a different conclusion than I have on how best to restore some sanity to the political process But they also recognize that a never-ending hunt for campaign contributions inevitably leads to tacit quid pro quo arrangements in which legislators raise large sums of special interest money from the same individuals who seek to influence their votes.
Far worse than the supporters of public funding who advocate for their position out of genuine principle, though, are those who populate California’s ruling political class, who have not lifted a finger toward the passage of public financing over the last several years but now cynically use the issue as an excuse not to pursue more achievable and useful reforms. The issue of public financing has become a hiding place of last resort for career politicians who are desperate to convince voters that they want to fix a broken system, but who are secure in their knowledge that this particular change will never happen.
How can you clean up an essentially corrupt culture in the State Capitol where every breakfast, lunch and dinner is a fundraising opportunity for politicians in both parties? The answer is to weaken the link between political giving and government action by banning fundraising while the state legislature is in session. Not just for a portion of the session, as some are belatedly proposing. But no fundraising allowed period – every day that the legislature is meeting.
The spectacle of our elected representatives scurrying around Sacramento to an ongoing parade of fundraising events squeezed in between floor debates and committee hearings sends an unfortunate message to voters that public policy is only the second highest priority for their elected representatives. Fundraising is a necessary part of politics. But governing is too. And you shouldn’t be able do both at the same time. First things first.
Some argue whether a ban on fundraising during legislative session would reduce the amount of money contributed to state campaigns. I believe that the reality of human nature suggests that a check written several months before or after a key legislative vote would weigh less heavily in the minds of all concerned than that same check written the night before or the morning of that same vote. As importantly, the appearance of corruption would be reduced. And inarguably, the amount of time that a legislator or statewide officeholder would have to devote to his or her official responsibilities would increase dramatically if he or she no longer had to set aside large blocs of time every day for fundraising calls, receptions and other legalized shakedowns.
Where there is complete agreement is the need for instant reporting and disclosure of all political contributions. During my time as chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, I learned that the technology required for such a system was both available and affordable. (A similar upgrade of the Secretary of State’s computer system could shrink the amount of time necessary for the granting of an application for a new business license from several weeks to a matter of days.)
So let’s start with 24 hour disclosure: on that we can all agree. But we should then move on to steps that make sure that our elected officials can concentrate on the job we elected them to do, without the constant distractions and obstacles that a never-ending chase for campaign cash forces on them. Banning fundraising while the legislature is in session won’t magically fix a broken system. But it can separate the acts of making laws from raising money. And that’s an important step in the right direction.
