ISSUE STATEMENT AND OPTIONS FOR ISSUE #201
SOLUTION DEFINITIONS AND OPTIONS FOR:
OR
IDEAL CONDITIONS: Elected officials should be motivated only by the desire to represent their constituents interests in order to win their votes not by the need to over-represent contributors to obtain funds for their campaigns.
ISSUE JUSTIFICATION: Representative democracy is based on the principle of one man - one vote. Unfortuntely campaign contributions are a second unofficial form of "WALLET" voting. When a small proportion of the electorate and special interest organizations account for the vast majority of campaign contributions as is now the case, their resulting influence on elected representatives actions undermines the people's control of government.
AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com
REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE
REVIEW CURRENT VOTING RESULTS ON THIS ISSUE
COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE YOURSELF
RETURN TO THIS ISSUE/SOLUTION MENU
CHOOSE ANOTHER CATEGORY 200 ISSUE
JUSTIFICATION: American citizens must assume the responsibility of funding political campaigns to break the hold of special interests over elected officials. A $100 limit will keep candidates free from individual obligations while a 50% tax credit (or whatever level is required) will encourage citizens to either vote with their wallets for their preferred candidates or pay for the tax credits of their fellow citizens who do contribute. Publication of candidates campaign funds will allow voters to avoid over funding candidates and the requirement to submit receipts will minimize tax fraud.
AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com
OPTIONS FOR SOLUTION #201.1 TAX DEDUCTIBLE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS SOLUTION
REVIEW CURRENT VOTING RESULTS ON THIS SOLUTION
COMMENT ON THIS SOLUTION YOURSELF
RETURN TO THIS ISSUE/SOLUTION MENU
PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SOLUTION
JUSTIFICATION: Representative democracy requires that elected officials represent the electorate and only the electorate. Political contributions are a second form of voting with one's wallet. Just like voters can choose whether to vote, so they can also choose whether to contribute. However allowing non-franchised organizations to contribute gives them a voting authority that distorts elected officials' representation and such contributions should be illegal.
AUTHOR: UWSA SANTA CLARA CO EMAIL:humphrey@aimnet.com
OPTIONS FOR SOLUTION #201.2 CAN'T VOTE, CAN'T CONTRIBUTE
REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS SOLUTION
REVIEW CURRENT VOTING RESULTS ON THIS SOLUTION
COMMENT ON THIS SOLUTION YOURSELF
RETURN TO THIS ISSUE/SOLUTION MENU
PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SOLUTION
JUSTIFICATION: Ideally, a citizen's vote should be his/her best means to influence the actions of elected officials. With a Blind Trust for Contributions, candidates for federal office would neither know the amount of contributions nor the identify of their contributors. This solution also reduces accounting irregularities by funneling all campaign contributions through an independent government agency. This solution diminishes the need for additional campaign finance reform but in no way precludes passage of additional legislation as the Congress sees fit. Finally this solution restores individual privacy by making the amount of individual political contributions private. Individuals can feel free to contribute to political causes without fear of reprisals from others who do not share their political views and see their name on a public contributors list.
AUTHORS: Rich Martin EMAIL: RichSlick@aol.com
OPTIONS FOR SOLUTION #201.3 BLIND TRUST FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS SOLUTION
REVIEW CURRENT VOTING RESULTS ON THIS SOLUTION
COMMENT ON THIS SOLUTION YOURSELF
RETURN TO THIS ISSUE/SOLUTION MENU
PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SOLUTION
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: As a public service, TV and radio stations would be required to provide a limited amount of free air time for all candidates running for political office. While the detailed provisions of this plan need further discussion, the basic framework would be to equally provide all declared candidates for national, state and especially for local offices a limited amount of free air time sufficient for them to achieve basic name recognition for themselves and their positions with the electorate. Within these guidelines TV and radio stations would be given the freedom to decide on the format (e.g. candidate debates, discussions, town halls etc.) of these presentations.
JUSTIFICATION: The explosion of political campaign TV advertising over the last 30 years is the prime cause of the dramatic increase in the cost of political campaigns and in the increase in special interest influence in the political process. Limited free air time for candidates will reduce special interest influence and enhance the process of representative democracy by:
1) helping to free legislators from the daily distraction and ethical conflicts of raising campaign money.
2) helping level the field between challengers and incumbents (who currently receive most of the special interest money) and
3) enabling more candidates of modest means and without commitments to special interests to run for public office.
While this proposal imposes some additional costs on broadcast media to enable all declared candidates to achieve basic name recognition, it stops well short of requiring publicly funded campaigns. Since the airwaves belong to the American people, broadcast licenses carry an implied civic responsibility. Providing citizens with basic information on political candidates is part of that civic responsibility.
Author: Sandra Mendoza Email: Sandra_Mendoza@marinfo.org
OPTIONS FOR SOLUTION #201.4 LIMITED FREE AIR TIME FOR CANDIDATES
REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS SOLUTION
REVIEW CURRENT VOTING RESULTS ON THIS SOLUTION
COMMENT ON THIS SOLUTION YOURSELF
RETURN TO THIS ISSUE/SOLUTION MENU
PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SOLUTION
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Non-political organizations such as unions, professional associations and civic organizations may not use regular dues for any political activities defined as the support of specific candidates, parties, ballot initiatives or to support educational or lobbying activities. Such organizations are permitted to do any of the above only when funded by voluntary contributions. The scope of activities to be funded by these contributions can be broadly or narrowly defined at the option of the organizations' leadership, but the scope must be clearly disclosed before each contribution request. The list of contributors and non-contributors shall be kept confidential and any discrimenatory actions against members who choose not to contribute shall be grounds for civil action.
JUSTIFICATION: Citizens who join non-political organizations should not be required to support political activities they do not believe in. This is especially true for organizations like unions or professional associations whose membership may be either required or essential to earning a living.
Author: Rich Martin Email: RichSlick@aol.com
OPTIONS FOR SOLUTION #201.5 ONLY VOLUNTARY DUES FOR POLITICAL CAUSES
REVIEW BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THIS SOLUTION
REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS SOLUTION
REVIEW CURRENT VOTING RESULTS ON THIS SOLUTION
COMMENT ON THIS SOLUTION YOURSELF
RETURN TO THIS ISSUE/SOLUTION MENU
PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS SOLUTION
Reprinted from The Washington Times
Reprint Permission for This UVOTE page Only granted by
P.E. Innerst, Deputy Managing Editor
If you think Washington union officials speak for their rank-and-file membership, think again. If current trends continue, the rank-and-file membership may find themselves more aligned with the Republican Party than with their own national leadership.
We recently asked 1,000 union members to talk about the multimillion-dollar political campaign being waged by national union officials in their name and with their money - and they don't like it. The membership is uninformed, they don't like what they hear and almost half are likely to ask for their money back. An unqualified endorsement this is not.
The rank and file generally approve of their own unions but are over- whelmingly opposed to what their national bosses are doing this year. Who can blame them? AFL-CIO President John Sweeney is using their hard-earned membership dues to wage a highly negative, overtly partisan $35 million campaign to defeat dozens of House Republican freshmen.
And why do Sweeney and his Washington colleagues dislike these Republican freshmen? Because those Republican freshmen are committed to a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, working-family tax cuts and true welfare reform that puts time limits on eligibility and returns power to the states.
We know where the AFL-CIO national leadership stands on all these issues: firmly opposed. However, when the rank and file were given the right to voice their opinions, a starkly different picture developed. Fully 78 percent backed the $5OO family tax credit, 82 percent wanted a balanced budget amendment and 87 percent backed the welfare proposal - all against the expressed public pronouncements of their own Washington leadership. And despite what these so called representatives of labor have claimed, the rank and file believe a "Republican" congressional balanced budget would be a "good thing for working families" by an overwhelmingly 61 to 15 percent margin. (The personal opinions of the members apparently are unimportant if they conflict with the political biases of the Washington bosses.)
The fact is, Washington union officials are consistently at odds with their own members' opinions, and this explains why the rank and file have significantly more confidence in their local leaders than their national representatives. The fact is, whenever given the opportunity to choose between local and national union leadership, the local team always wins. Whether in terms of union policy and priorities or candidates and politics, members believe they are better represented by their local chapters by a sizable margin.
Moreover, if the rank and file actually knew what the Washington leadership was doing with their money, a rebellion might result. Less than a majority (40 percent) know that a national campaign against the Republican freshmen is under way. After being informed that the AFL-CIO was planning to spend $35 million in mandatory monthly dues to defeat congressional Republicans, the reaction was overwhelmingly hostile (62 percent oppose it, 31 percent support). Every demographic subgroup within the union population - even Democrats - opposes the partisan effort being waged by Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. Among newer members, the union campaign is opposed by a 77-19 margin. For union officials committed to rebuilding the internal image of their unions, this is a dangerous result.
The fact is, if the membership had its way, their unions would stay out of politics and definitely stay away from partisan campaigns. When asked to choose what they thought should be the most important responsibility of their union, preserving jobs was by far the top choice (58 percent) followed by increasing wages and benefits (27 percent). Improving the image of unions was a distant third (8 percent). Engaging in political election activities? Again, the lowest response of the four.
There simply is no evidence of significant rank-and-file support for engaging in partisan political campaign activities. To claim otherwise simply is dishonest. If it were put to a vote, the rank and file would reject it overwhelmingly.
When told that they have the right to a refund on the portion of their dues that is spent for political purposes, 20 percent of those surveyed said they would "definitely" request their money back, and another 20 percent would be "very likely" to request it. Yet only 19 percent knew beforehand that they could request such a refund.
It is unfortunate that the rank and file know so little of what their union leaders in Washington are doing, but that's how the union officials want it.
And this probably accounts for their overwhelming desire to know "exactly how" their officials spend their dues. By an overwhelming 84-to-9 percent margin, union members want to force their union hierarchy to explain what happens to their dues, where the money is spent and why. Any Republican who proposes this legislation would be hitting a political home run among the union rank and file back home.
Republican candidates should take off their ties, roll up their sleeves and head for the nearest local union hall. The Washington bosses may have declared war, but Republicans will find a peaceful embrace from many of their union neighbors.
RETURN TO OPTION MENU FOR THIS SOLUTION