The
Buckner Plan for Clean Election
The Buckner Plan for Clean and Fair Elections
“The reform that makes other reforms
finally possible”
― Bill Moyers
1. Introduction
Georgia
citizens—not special interest groups--deserve to be the key players in the election
of our government officials. Georgia needs elections that are free
of special interest money that compromises the integrity of our democratic process.
Our system is broken but not beyond repair. Gail Buckner has championed electoral
reform over her 16 years in the Georgia House of Representatives and will continue
to push an aggressive reform platform that will actually diminish the clout of
special interests in Georgia elections.
2. The Problem
In
2004, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, 90 percent
of Georgia’s
legislative and statewide contests were decided by money. In the House, the average amount raised by a
winner was $62,618, whereas the average loser raised $27,459. In the Senate, winners averaged $166,620 while
losers raised $56,177. Over $53 million
was raised in all, which translates into $11.85 raised per voter. Roughly, 90 percent of all contributions were
donated by special interest groups and wealthy individuals. The remaining 10 percent originated from parties
and the candidates themselves. (See appendix in section 7 more statistics)
What
kind of message does this send? If you’re not rich or well connected then you’re
not qualified to run for office? Or, if
you don’t have the time for your 9-5 job, office and constituent obligations,
in addition to fund raising (assuming you don’t have a family and social life)
then you’re plum out of luck? Is that how
it is? It’s no wonder that voters are apathetic.
| "For years, special interests and big money have had
a negative influence on our local, state and national elections. Clean Elections
changes that. In 1998, you voted for the Clean Elections Act and restored voter
confidence in the electoral process. Clean Elections works well to overcome the
influence of special interests. It gives Arizonans the power to create good government.
Keep supporting Clean Elections”. ― Senator John McCain, R-Arizona |
3. About
the proposal
The
Georgia Clean and Fair Elections Act is two fold. First, it will establish the
Clean Campaign Commission to oversee a “clean” funding alternative to the special
interest system that facilitates corruption and government waste. Second, it will
create the Georgia Democracy Endowment to serve as the source of clean funding.
Inspired by measures in Arizona and Maine,
the Clean and Fair Elections Act is an innovative campaign finance reform movement
that offers public funding of campaigns for qualified candidates who wish to run
for statewide and legislative offices. Clean funding is an alternate approach
to political fundraising and not a replacement of the current system; therefore,
running “clean” is strictly optional.
Clean
and Fair Elections does many things. It stimulates broader citizen participation
in the political process while diminishing the role of lobbyists and special interests.
It also combats the specter of corruption, ensures judicial impartiality, reduces
the time candidates and office holders spend on fundraising, levels the playing
field between opposing candidates, and increases the number and diversity of qualified
candidates. But more importantly, it enables registered voters to support their
preferred candidates through affordable contributions in addition to encouraging
more candidate interaction with low and moderate income communities. In effect,
Clean Elections institutionalizes grassroots populism while serving as the impetus
for wholesale reform.
4. Ten Reasons for Clean Elections
I. Clean Elections Increases Competition by Leveling the Fundraising Playing
Field
Under
the current system, incumbent office holders build massive war chests that effectively
discourage competition. Most campaign contributors view their donations to sitting
officials as wise investments that ensure future access to elected decision-makers.
On the other hand, a contribution to a challenger, however bright and innovative
he or she may be, is a gamble – a risky venture wrought with doubt and uncertainties.
Clean Elections reduces the fundraising advantages shared by complacent incumbents
and networking dynamos, thereby increasing competition and injecting more vibrancy,
creativity and diverse thinking into what can be a stagnated system that oozes
token ideas and mediocre solutions.
II. Clean Elections is a Remedy for Voter Apathy
You
know Reagan once said the second oldest profession often resembles the first.
That was an astute observation, a quality shared by young adults. Young people
as well some adults see the money changing, the gutter wars, the circus acts,
and the acidic climate and are rightfully repulsed – that is until their youthful
idealism begins to wane. These perceived and often real malignancies simmer within
the disenfranchised and help fan the flames of voter apathy. But it wouldn’t be
fair to assign all the blame to politicians. Politicians may be complicit, but
the real culprit is campaign finance. And as long as political campaigns cost
a small fortune candidates will not go out of their way to court young voters
because the costs outweigh the benefits. Clean Elections would change that and
allow for more experimentation in reaching out to disenfranchised voters.
III.
Clean Elections Controls the Escalating Costs of Campaigns
The
business community wishes to compete in the marketplace, not in a political contributions
arms race. According to a national survey conducted by the Clean Elections Institute,
78% of business executives agree that the traditional campaign finance system
is out of control and that they are pressured to increase campaign contributions.
A majority of business executives fear they will suffer adverse consequences if
they turn down requests for campaign contributions from high-ranking political
leaders. Candidates who run clean aren't allowed to spend any private contributions
for their campaigns at all, freeing business leaders from the mad dash for campaign
cash.
IV.
Clean Elections Provides Budget Insurance
Year
after year, millions of dollars are squandered on sweetheart deals, pork projects,
and expensive court battles to defend flawed legislative gimmicks. In the 2006
legislative session, over $300 million in pork spending was inserted in the state’s
general fund. Clean Money would ensure that public and tax policy is not influenced
by large contributors and political warfare. That's cheap budget insurance. It’s
the perfect elixir for treating the undue influence of money on politics and restoring
voters' faith in state government.
V. Clean Elections Increases Voter Turn-Out
This
process has already proven successful in Arizona and Maine.
After implementation, voter turn-out in Arizona
increased by 27 percent and rose 19 percent in Maine. Moreover, both states experienced a
substantial increase in the number of qualified candidates. The beauty of Clean and Fair Elections legislation
is that voters can choose between “clean” candidates and traditional candidates
supported by private money and special interests.
VI. Clean Elections Increases the Number and Diversity of Candidates
In
Arizona’s 2002
elections, the number of Native Americans and Latino candidates nearly tripled
from the previous cycle. In 2000, 13 such hopefuls competed in both primaries
(10 were cleanly financed), while 37 Native American and Latino candidates ran
in 2002 (21 were ran popular). Obviously, the populist nature of Clean Elections
encourages a greater number and diversity of candidates to run for public office.
This not only enhances voter options but it motivates the disenfranchised and
renews the democratic institutions of government.
VII. Clean Elections Encourages
Candidate Interaction in Under-Represented Communities
In
relieving the pressures of fundraising, Clean Elections encourages greater interaction
with all voters regardless of influence and personal wealth. The emphasis that
clean funding places on smaller more numerous contributions enhances the clout
of modest and middle income voters. Under-represented communities are bolstered
under political systems in which their votes and small contributions carry as
much weight as the offerings by affluent donors. It can be said that Clean Elections
provides a collection plate approach to campaign financing.
VIII. Clean Elections Provide Autonomy for Office Holders
Current
finance methods consume most of the time spent on political campaigns. However
reduced, those efforts don’t end when victory is realized. Elected officials often
capitalize on their public status by raising funds for future campaigns from lobbyists
and special interests that solicit business and favors from government. Besides
the time diverted from constituents and official responsibilities, this reality
of public service can be a deal-breaker for promising leaders and is especially
burdensome for part-time legislators who often have families and hold full-time
jobs. The contribution limits imposed by clean funding are readily met, allowing
hopefuls and office holders to shift their focus to grassroots campaigning and
accomplishing stated goals.
IX.
Clean Elections Combats the Appearance of Corruption, Restoring Trust in Government
and Business Partnerships
Our
current campaign finance system makes the public believe that government policies
are open to the highest bidder. This widespread perception has eroded public confidence
in government as well as business. A voluntary system of full public funding of
election campaigns would end that perception by providing a fair and proven alternative
to the way election campaigns are financed.
Clean
Elections requires participating candidates to refuse private contributions. For
example, a candidate for insurance commissioner would not be allowed to accept
campaign contributions from insurance companies. A candidate for Public Service
Commission could not accept funds from a regulated industry and so on. In this
way, clean funding directly advances a government’s compelling interest in avoiding
corruption or the appearance there of.
X. Clean Elections Protects Integrity of the Court System
The
integrity and of the court system depends on the ability of judges to decide cases
fairly – based on facts and law, not on political pressure applied by private
donors and special interest. In most states as in Georgia,
Supreme and Appellate Court judges are elected statewide, and like any other statewide
office the campaign trail to victory is paved with substantial funding – most
often provided by law firms and corporate entities. The Constitution much less
common sense dictates that judges render fair, impartial and independent decisions.
A clean funding would eliminate the need for judges to raise money from people
with business before the court, and in this way, diminishes any real or perceived
conflicts of interest.
In
two national surveys conducted by Greenberg Quinian Rosner Research and American
Viewpoint, both American voters and judges expressed deep concern about how we
select judges and how it affects fair and impartial courts.
- 76%
of voters believe that campaign contributions made to judges have an impact on
their decisions
- 67%
of voters feel that individuals or groups who have given money to judicial candidates
often get favorable treatment
- 84%
of judges express concerns about special interest groups influencing judicial
elections
4. How it works and how it has fared
elsewhere
In
Arizona, clean
funding originates from several sources including a voluntary check-off box on
state income tax forms. In 2001, 650,000 Arizonans donated more than $14 million
to the fund administered by the Clean Campaign Commission. Maine on the other hand,
appropriates a specified amount directly from their general fund.
Twenty-three
other states and twelve cities including Los Angeles, Miami and New York City have followed
suit and operate hybrids of the Clean Elections system. While there are various
versions of Clean Elections, it is interesting to note that in Arizona the maximum campaign
donation is $100 before qualification and $5 during the qualification period.
In Georgia,
individual caps for statewide races are set at $5,000.
As
a testament to this process, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano was cleanly elected
to her statewide office. She has stated, “When I ran for Attorney General in 1998,
I sat in my office for five or six hours a day asking people for money, which
I despised.” Her campaign for governor in 2002 was vastly different.
She collected 6,000 citizen donations of $5 and was still elected statewide.
Last year, TIME rated her one of the five best governors in the nation. She was
also rumored to be a possible Vice Presidential nominee.
In
both states, the percentage of people running as participating candidates rather
than as traditional candidates has increased every election cycle. In 2000, only
26% of Arizona’s primary candidates ran with clean
funding. The number of candidates jumped in 2002 to 56% and increased once again
in 2004 to 61%. The Maine
version also had its maiden run in 2000, with half the State Senate and 30% of
State House members being elected without any special interest money. In 2002,
those numbers rose to 77% of the Senate and 55% of the House. Clearly, Clean Elections
is working because non-participants are finding themselves marked with the scarlet
letter of special interest.
| “With
the Clean Elections, it seemed less daunting a task to run. I could do what I
can do, which is talk to people, as opposed to raising money, which in my life, I didn’t have any experience in.” ― Maine State Representative Deborah Simpson (D), Single
mother juggling night school and a waitressing job before
winning public office. |
5. Clean funding
Seed Money
Under
the Georgia Clean Elections Act, legislative and statewide candidates who choose
to run “clean” would be allowed to invest as much as $1,000 in their own campaign
and collect up to a certain amount of $100 seed contributions from voters registered
in the state of Georgia during what is known as an
exploratory period. The exploratory period
would begin the day after a general election and expire January 1 of the next
election cycle. For example, November 8, 2006 to January 1, 2008 would be designated
an exploratory period. January 1 to the qualifying deadline in late April would
be designated as the qualifying period.
Qualifying Contributions
From
the official start of qualifying to end, participating candidates would be
required to collect a set number of $5 contributions from voters to prove
he or she is not a fringe candidate. For example, a gubernatorial candidate would
have to collect 3,500 $5 donations before he or she could qualify (2,000 for other
statewide candidates and 250 for legislative). If a “clean” candidate is out funded
by a non-participating opponent then the “clean” participant would be provided
matching funds, up to a certain amount, by the Clean Campaign Commission. In addition
to seed and qualifying contributions, clean funding would originate from a clean
funding endowment.
Georgia Democracy
Endowment
The
Endowment will be designed to operate like a university endowment. Individuals,
corporations, lobbying firms, political action committees, and other business
entities wishing to contribute to the political process would receive a 100% tax
deduction for contributions to the endowment.
Also,
citizens filing state income tax returns will have the option of designating a
$5 donation to the fund by marking a check-off box on their forms. Contributing
Georgia
tax payers will receive a $5 (or $10 if filing jointly) deduction, which will
be redirected to the fund. Taxpayers will be allowed to redirect up to 20 percent
(or $500 whichever is greater) of taxes owed to the fund.
Eventually
interest generated by the fund will be enough to fund campaigns of participating
candidates. Until then, supplemental revenue sources will be directed to reinforce
the Endowment. Those revenue streams will originate from the following:
·
10% surcharge
on criminal fines originating from fraud and identification theft
·
Ethics fines
incurred by candidates and elected official as well as fines incurred by candidates and officials who violate rules
governing Clean Elections program
·
Revenue
from prestige license plates – including new, special designs. One will be
dominated by the state flag (with digits running across white stripe). The second
will feature the state’s crest. Many states have crests, in addition their seals,
which reflect their own unique culture and history. Georgia
currently does not, but if elected I will commission a statewide contest and challenge
Georgians to submit their own designs.
·
Tax amnesty
program – Tax amnesty programs waive penalties and criminal sanctions for
the non-reporting or underreporting of tax liabilities. In 1992, Georgia
offered a tax amnesty program for all tax sources, which generated $51 million
in tax payments.
·
10% surcharge
on non-competitive bid for state contracts – Georgia enters a wide array of contracts
based for the provision of goods and services. More and more of these contracts
are not put out for competitive bid. Given the potential conflict of interest
inherent in non-competitive contracts and the periodic questions raised or scandals
caused by the practice, a surcharge imposed on non-competitive bids would certainly
be appropriate.
*
Under the Clean and Fair Elections Act, 20 percent of funds collected will be
earmarked for enforcement and voter education programs, which will include publishing
candidate profile brochures for registered voters.
6. Conclusion
There
are many ways to approach Clean Elections in Georgia and Buckner plans to seek
input and expert advice from many stakeholders before implementing new rules and
regulations. She will work with the Clean Campaign Commission, the State Ethics
Commissions, our next governor and General Assembly members to devise and implement
the best reforms for our state.
The
immediate goal of Buckner’s reform plan is to cultivate a legislative consensus
on an enabling bill so it can be put before the voters in a November 2008 referendum.
Citizens will know the full scope of what’s involved in severing the ball and
chain of special interest money and will have the opportunity to cast their ballot
for change. Under Buckner’s steady and progressive leadership, average Georgians
will reclaim their rightful place at the table.
Our
state government exists to serve the people of Georgia—not
the special interests. Gail Buckner’s approach to campaign finance reform, utilizing
the Clean Elections model, will bring an end to the era of ordinary people being
shut out of our democratic process. Instead, as Secretary of State, Gail Buckner
and her dedication to clean and fair campaigns will usher in an era of unparalleled
influence for hard-working Georgians across the state.
*
All statistical information regarding Arizona
and Maine originated
from each state’s Clean Elections state websites
7. Appendix (figures provided by the National Institute on Money in State Politics
at www.followthemoney.org)
| Average Dollars Raised
for Georgia House Races |
| Cycle | Winners | Losers | Incumbents | Challengers | Open Seat |
| 1996 | $25,539 | $14,458 | $25,164 | $11,892 | $18,090 |
| 1998 | $37,375 | $20,234 | $37,196 | $13,642 | $32,180 |
| 2000 | $36,307 | $30,411 | $37,092 | $20,955 | $29,239 |
| 2002 | $50,714 | $31,996 | $54,250 | $33,684 | $25,355 |
| 2004 | $62,618 | $27,459 | $63,882 | $25,256 | $29,870 |
| | | | | | |
| Average Dollars Raised
for Georgia Senate Races |
| Cycle | Winners | Losers | Incumbents | Challengers | Open Seat |
| 1996 | $66,821 | $16,150 | $64,176 | $16,448 | $30,941 |
| 1998 | $95,318 | $29,943 | $97,284 | $21,614 | $46,779 |
| 2000 | $86,991 | $56,162 | $88,952 | $34,867 | $46,108 |
| 2002 | $129,938 | $75,374 | $123,971 | $47,461 | $89,313 |
| 2004 | $166,620 | $56,177 | $161,741 | $42,153 | $77,868 |
| Average Raised by Statewide
Candidates in 2002 |
| Office | Winners | Losers |
|
| Governor | $5,156,636 | $3,606,801 | |
| Judicial | $112,739 | $15,091 | |
| Other
Statewide | $823,441 | $124,996 | |
| Average Raised by Statewide
Candidates in 1998 |
| Office | Winners | Losers |
|
| Governor | $8,225,972 | $2,602,493 | |
| Judicial | $0 | $0 | |
| Other
Statewide | $683,212 | $153,939 | |
| Average Raised by Legislative
Candidates in 2004 |
| State House | Winners | Losers | Incumbents | Challengers |
Open Seat |
| Georgia | $67,618 | $27,459 | $63,882 | $25,256 | $29,870 |
| Arizona | $34,857 | $24,397 | $32,987 | $25,593 | $28,410 |
| Maine | $5,709 | $5,180 | $5,284 | $0 | $4,316 |
| State Senate | Winners | Losers | Incumbents | Challengers | Open Seat |
| Georgia | $166,620 | $56,177 | $161,741 | $42,153 | $77,868 |
| Arizona | $42,382 | $26,239 | $44,028 | $27,091 | $49,522 |
| Maine | $25,215 | $28,411 | $24,261 | $0 | $21,790 |
