Difference between revisions of "Campaign Finance Reform"
Mfeinstein (talk | contribs) (Disclosure) |
Mfeinstein (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| − | '''Proposals''': | + | '''Proposals''': The Green Party supports |
'''Contribution and Spending Limits''' | '''Contribution and Spending Limits''' | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits. | - Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits. | ||
| − | - Overturn the | + | - Overturn the ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds (from Proposition 73 in 1988) |
- Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates. | - Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates. | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
- Expose and eliminate dark money in elections | - Expose and eliminate dark money in elections | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 00:25, 5 June 2016
Democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard and represented. Unfortunately big money in politics has an undue, disproportionate and corrupting influence, and undermines our democracy. The reasons for this are many:
- Though a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections,
Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending.
- Elections are expensive, by their nature, in order to reach large numbers of voters. In the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.
Elections and campaigns do cost money, and it is also in the public interest for voters to be well-informed. The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.
Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, via governmental voter guides and other media. This would provide all voters with a baseline of information about all the candidates before them.
Combined with this, Greens support public financing via a system where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns, even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
- Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse, by making the primary election as expensive as the general.
Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.
Proposals: The Green Party supports
Contribution and Spending Limits
- Amend the U.S. Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).
- Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing.
Public Financing
- Establish matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio.
- Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures.
- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits.
- Overturn the ban in California that prevents counties, districts, general law cities, or the state from offering public campaign funds (from Proposition 73 in 1988)
- Provide a $25 refundable tax credit for small contributions to candidates.
- Create small donor committees that aggregate the voices of small donors.
- Require that free television and radio time be dedicated to candidates, elections debates and forums ,and political parties as part of all commercial public broadcast licenses.
- Require that time on Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Access Channels be dedicated to candidates, debates and forums for elections within the PEG area
Disclosure
- Require disclosure of all permissible contributions on Federal, State, and local government levels
- Expose and eliminate dark money in elections
