| Crossposted from Channel Surfing:
I am getting the distinct impression that the folks who control the state Legislature do not want public financing of elections to actually work.
Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Camden) has introduced legislation that would expand state's clean elections pilot program for the 2007 election to a third legislative district and lower the seed-money threshold, but he has kept a tight leash on the program -- though you wouldn't know it from Tuesday's story in The Star-Ledger: |
Candidates next year would have to raise only 800 donations of $10 each -- at least $8,000 -- to qualify for public subsidies. The state's Election Law Enforcement Commission would be given more money to promote the program. And, for the first time, the program would be tried in a competitive district where a challenger might have real chance of winning.
"If enacted, these reforms will help prove that public financing can strengthen the democratic process by keeping special interest money out of election campaigns," said Roberts. The Roberts bill, though, ignores most of the recommendations made by a commission -- which included 14th District Assembly members Linda Greenstein, the Democrat who formulated the initial pilot program, and Republican Bill Baroni -- appointed to study the 2005 experience.
The main findings were that the seed money threshold was too high, limiting access to the program. It also said the program should be tried in up to six legislative districts, explicitly include independent and third-party candidates and cover the primaries.
The Roberts bill does none of this.
Including just three districts, as The Asbury Park Press points out,
leaves 37 districts where the special-interest spigot can be turned on to influence an election in which all 120 seats in the Legislature are up for grabs. If the legislative leaders really want to cut off special interests, candidates in all districts must have a chance to run "clean." While
Public financing of primaries would give party outsiders a shot at the nomination, which is invariably controlled by county party leaders. Giving third-party and independent candidates public money would bring competition that is lacking in too many districts, especially those dominated by one political party. The clean elections system is supposed to open the electoral process up to more candidates while removing the taint of private money. If we insist on keeping a tight leash on it, the program will never accomplish what it's supposed to.
Here are some columns from our archives from earlier this year -- sorry, they are not free:
- DISPATCHES by Hank Kalet: A conspiracy so immense, Jan. 26, 2006
- DISPATCHES: Expand clean elections pilot, Feb. 9, 2006
- DISPATCHES: A good start toward reform, June 1, 2006
- DISPATCHES: Pointing the way to reform, Oct. 12, 2006
- DISPATCHES: Follow Lawrence's lead, Nov. 22, 2006
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick |
