cpt-emnn494-5551212

I am Craig Dunkerley, the Southbay Area Coordinator for the California Clean Money Campaign. I just listened to your interview with Allan Hoffenblum on AB 583. I think he raised some interesting concerns; fortunately all can be rather easily addressed. I'll try to take them in chronological order as they came up in the interview.

He mentions that spending limits are not a good approach to reforming campaign financing because they tend to drive money underground to IE's (Independent Expenditure groups) and that public financing of campaigns or "Clean Money" would not fix this.

This is actually incorrect. A key component of AB 583 is the Matching Funds provision. This would give the clean money candidate a dollar-for-dollar match of any IE expenditure against him/her. This does two things. One, it creates a situation where there is no "underground" place for the private money to go, because all IE spending has to be reported. Secondly, because such spending triggers matching funds for the clean money candidate, it discourages such expenditures; why spend independent money to attack an opponent if that opponent will just receive more money to fight back as a result.

He mentions that many Assembly campaigns cost in excess of 1 million dollars. Actually while some do, the vast majority do not. The allotments in the bill for clean money candidates were based on analysis of what was actually spent in the last election cycle and with the matching funds provision would adequately fund over 90% of the races. And, as Allan points out, money is not the end-all, and "adequate funds to get your message out" is all that's really required. Here again the matching funds provision effectively throws a wet blanket on many a millionaire's dreams of buying the next election and discourages them from running in the first place.

Allan mentions that many incumbents are too strong and few can seriously challenge them with the result that the party leaders...not the voters...end up deciding who is viable and who is not. I submit that that's precisely the problem. If new candidates with new ideas and community support want to run, the voters and not the party leaders should decide who runs and who gets elected. And money should have as little to do with it as possible. I submit that elections should be contests of ideas not dollars.

He acknowledges that private campaign contributions can corrupt the process but asserts that you can't drive private money out...and that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

Arizona and Maine have proven otherwise. In each election cycle in those states the influence of private money has steadily declined. Candidates are sick of the endless and demeaning fundraising and the conflicts of interests that come with it. And voters are sick of having their interests trumped by those of big campaign donors. In Arizona for example it's reached the point where one of the first things constituents ask a speaking or canvassing candidate (who now has time to be doing such things) is "are you running clean?" Moreover, because the spending limits and restrictions on accepting private money are voluntary (candidates are free to opt out), there are no free speech issues...and courts in both states have repeatedly said so.

Allan correctly points out that merely wanting to run is not sufficient to merit spending tax-payer dollars to fund a campaign. As you pointed out in the interview, AB 583 couldn't agree more. That's why there are strict conditions a prospective candidate must meet to qualify for public funding.

He also suggested that if IE's and /or other private expenditures triggered matching funds it would break the bank, i.e. be prohibitively expensive. Once again Arizona and Maine have proven otherwise. The disincentives to "buy elections" have actually reduced overall expenditures in those states. In addition, AB 583 has allotment caps on individual races and an overall cap on how much the whole system will cost. The truth is the pattern Arizona and Maine has been that the Clean Money system actually pays for itself many times over as fewer and fewer expensive special interest driven programs and tax loopholes find their way through the legislative process and into law. Why? Because lobbyists have only the merits of their ideas--and not campaign cash--to use as persuasion.

Allan cites the federal presidential system as an example of how you can't drive private money out of the system...it just goes elsewhere (into 527's or IE's). He's right at the federal level...BUT the reason is that the federal system doesn't have the matching funds provision. This is not some new-fangled hair-brained utopian dream. Clean Money money does work--and has worked--in driving out the influence of private money everywhere the system has included such a provision.

As for our governor, he famously said "Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento; here's how it works: the money comes in...the favors go out...the people lose." So if he doesn't support this Clean Money reform he will at a minimum have some fancy explaining to do. Moreover, he recently told George Skelton of the L.A. Times that this endless campaign fundraising is crazy and the time has come for a Clean Money system of public financing to get serious consideration. That's a long way short of full endorsement, but I think it shows he's at least paying attention to the problem.

Allan said he didn't know the Democratic position on Clean Money, but was confident the Republicans would fight it. For the record the California Democrats endorsed it at their convention several months ago. As for the Republicans I hope he's wrong. The Republicans have a golden opportunity to get out in front on this reform and distance themselves from all the Republican campaign scandals in D.C. In other states where it's been used, both political parties and the voters overwhelmingly approve of it. Good government, where officials are accountable to voters rather than donors, is a decidedly non-partisan issue. Witness the fact that Republican Governor Rell of Connecticut just recently took great pride in signing that state's legislation for public financing. And her voter approval ratings shot up when she did. I think it would be a shame if the Republicans closed their minds to this idea and let the Democrats run away with it.

He mentions how voters don't really like the whole campaign process and would just as soon the whole mess go away. I think he's largely correct, but I would submit that a big part of why they're so apathetic and cynical is because private money has so thoroughly corrupted the whole process, most voters have understandably turned away in disgust...and who could blame them. Show them you're making substantive, proven reforms and I believe that trend can be reversed. It has been in Arizona and Maine. It can be in California too.

Voters will always view democracy as hard work for the simple reason that it is. The trick is to re-convince them that it's worth it...that they can be heard...and that their voices are not going to be drowned out by those with more money. Clean Money has already shown it can do this elsewhere. It's high time Californian's gave it the chance to do so here.