Get Herald RSSOver Thanksgiving break, I waltzed into a small New Jersey diner and dropped seven dollars on a stack of exquisite pumpkin pancakes. And as I sat snacking, I found myself pondering the inner workings of American democracy.
I thought about the billions spent in the flurry of November's election. I considered where all that money came from and lamented how I didn't have anywhere near that amount of wealth. In fact, I thought, neither did anyone else in the diner nor, to my best memory, anyone I've ever met in my entire life.
Meanwhile, images of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff danced in my head. Mostly, though, I thought about how we could be getting a better product - a lot better - from our political system, all for about the price of the pancakes sitting in front of me.
The proposed Clean Elections system in Rhode Island provides a clear and codified program that significantly reduces the influence of special interests and substantially trims the exorbitance of campaign funding. Candidates for public office can voluntarily agree to refuse large private donations, relying instead on grassroots fundraising during a qualifying period and public funds during later stages of the election. In exchange, they receive a level playing field through limited matching financial support if they are outspent by non-participating candidates. Most importantly, though, those running are able to designate themselves as "clean" candidates, committed to the honest representation of their constituencies and not beholden to the cancerous influence of special interests. It is estimated that such a program would cost each Rhode Island voter about $7.
"Pipe dreams," you might say. "Au contraire!" I retort. Systems of publicly financed elections have been introduced to great acclaim statewide in Maine and Arizona (and to varying degrees in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico and North Carolina) as well as in several municipalities across the nation. They have consistently led to decreases in campaign spending, greater voter turnout and reduced advantages to the incumbent. Moreover, the Clean Elections system presents no partisan benefits and is as popular among legislators as it is with voters - 83 percent of Maine's state senate is currently elected through the system. These localized successes continue to set a precedent for change on a national scale.
Most people consistently underestimate the importance of reform. What is perceived as a bothersome yet tolerable status quo is, in fact, anything but tolerable. The recent midterm election saw the use of $2.8 billion in campaign costs, far and away the most expensive to date and more than Brown's entire endowment. The price of a House seat was around $966,000 this year, while $7.8 million would have bought you a spot in the Senate. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N. Y., championed this sickening trend by forking out more than $35 million, at least showing some signs of thrift by saving another $14 million for a potential presidential bid in 2008.
This is not how it has always been. Elections now cost nearly three times what they did in the early 1990s. Nor is this behavior confined to election season. Both the number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and the fees they charge have doubled during the Bush presidency. $2.4 billion a year now keeps 65 lobbyists working around the clock for every one Congressmen. We should reminisce about the days when the pork supertanker was only a small barrel.
In addition to the sheer magnitude of political spending, the fact that financial strength is the only universal requisite to a successful campaign creates seemingly insurmountable barriers for candidates who are neither millionaires themselves (43 percent of U.S. senators are) nor chummy with the old boys. Indeed, there are many poor Americans, but very few poor congressmen. When 93 percent of House races and 67 percent of Senate races are taken by the biggest spender (98 and 88 percent, respectively, in 2004), the primacy of campaign funds among the concerns of our politicians is undeniable. I have yet to see a poll that shows voters feel the same way.
As the dust settles from November's political chaos, you might find yourself excited, disappointed, relieved, galvanized or just plain fed up. But however you feel about the election results, the process demands just as much reflection. There is no quick fix to the financial dynamics of American politics. Clean Elections, however, offers an honest and imperative step in the right direction.
Democracy Matters, a student group working to bring Clean Elections here to Rhode Island, invites you to join them for a Clean Elections panel tonight at 8 p.m. in Wilson 102.
Alex Roehrkasse '09 is throwing a party in his bathtub. The Rhode Island General Assembly has been invited.
