You say you want a reform revolution — Part II

February 9, 2006

A couple of weeks ago, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) pushed political reform to a new level, dismissing efforts to alter lobbying rules as insufficient and offering a proposal that would provide full public financing of all House elections. Yesterday, two Dem senators went even further.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin and Sen. Chris Dodd, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, said yesterday that they will push for public financing of federal elections. […]

Durbin told The Hill that while he supports the lobbying reform proposal endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), he believes that current campaign fundraising practices must also be addressed to tackle the problem of corruption. Specifically, Durbin said he is measuring the level of support for a public financing bill within the Senate Democratic caucus.

Keep in mind, we’re talking about two Dems who are in a position to push a proposal like this effectively. Durbin is the second-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, while Dodd is the most senior Democrat on the committee with jurisdiction over regulation of campaign finance. And now they both want a complete overhaul of the existing system.

The details are a little sketchy — Dodd pledged more specifics in “a couple weeks” — but these guys deserve grade-A kudos for taking this stand. If there’s ever been a time to pursue this approach, it’s now.

Conservative critics will almost certainly raise their familiar refrain, blasting public financing as “welfare for politicians.” But as Dodd told The Hill, there are an “awful lot of what people are upset about are violations of existing laws” and that a major source of potential corruption exists in the “campaign fundraising area.”

Yes, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is the chairman of the Rules Committee. No, there’s no way Lott will back this plan.

But Durbin and Dodd are helping to expand the discussion. Good for them.

Dems need to keep bringing, and publicizing, these ideas and programs. Put the other side on the spot to vote no.

  • Well, I applaud them for proposing it, but I think it’s dead in the water. Most Americans are familiar with the adage “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” and I don’t think that will ever change here.

    While they are at it, I would like to see them propose a strengthening of the Equal Time rule.

    The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, “American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations.”

  • I agree with Gridlock on bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” which Reagan scrapped, but I don’t agree that Federal Funding of elections is dead in the water.

    I believe ALL Democrats should campaign on Federal Funding of federal elections, banning all private contributions (monetary or in kind), seizing back TV air time for free campaign ads, and limiting the time of campaigns. Americans are fed up with TV ads, fed up with corruption, and fed up with the length of campaigns.

    He who has the gold may make the rules, but it is ultimately the American workers who produce that gold and (if they can be made to remember it) can control how it is to be spent.

  • I’m not optimistic. Public financing will probably not work for a great while. The city of Portland, Oregon, that great liberal bulwark, just enacted it and it’s coming under serious fire already. Even here. Plus, you’ll never get the GOP to sign on. Not that they shouldn’t try it.

  • It’s a great cause, and the Dems should get
    behind it. This is win/win for them, even if it
    loses, which of course it will. But the public
    will rally behind it. This could be very big, if
    the Dems don’t flub it. Look how term limits,
    which I never agreed with, captured the public’s
    fancy. This is potentially much, much bigger.

    Now is the time!

  • Excellent idea- so long as they keep pushing the talking point at ALL times about how relatively cheap this program would be (i.e. funding all Congressional campaigns would buy a couple of hours in Iraq… or any similar comparison). If they don’t, this one will be snowed under rapidly. I don’t even think I need to mention all of the soundbites which will be used against it- and most of them make for really good TV snippets.

    • Comments are closed.