Campaign Finance Reform

Voting is a valuable privilege that many Americans have simply thrown away for various reasons. One such reasons is that some think the elections are rigged from the beginning based on a silent vote of a “party chairman” and then the dog fights shortly follow. If someone wanted to run for an office, regardless of their solidarity, they wouldn’t have a fighting chance. The financial muster and fortitude could wane on many good candidates and many times creates an undue burden on the ones who hock the family nest egg just to get it scrambled by over-opinionated biased media casts.

The second reason voters are apathetic is the feeling of discontent with the whole system and feel that instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils” they will simply not vote. Sadly, this reason has a bit of truth to it. Our current manipulated system of elections is at least a breeding ground for corruption because both major parties will generally stop at nothing to get their “chosen” elected. Voting is no more the will of the people than it is the direction the pendulum is swinging.

When America is in the “campaign cycle” regardless of the open position to be filled, the current costs and venues that officials use to expose themselves to the public is very pricey, and if you are like me, cannot wait for the whole thing to be over when you see the negative ads on TV, the mudslinging and rhetoric for days until the election is over and the public simmers down.

The only way for this to be clearly set up to be a more fair, interactive and competitive debate is to set a time limit evenly distributed amongst all candidates they have only a certain amount of time to get their message out through the media, and all other areas for canvassing is done at the smallest district level in Town Halls, Parks, Community events and such.

Any funds generated by a particular elector should be visible to the public to see what sort of group is possibly “buying “their votes and each candidate can only accept donations from corporations  in the form of vouchers or statements in kind from local establishments. This means that if the position is a local election, an out of state company cannot pay into his fund, but a local business can endorse such candidate by offering their space for open speeches to the public, they could offer real estate on buildings to show support, but under no circumstances should money be handed from a corporation to a candidate for an election that deals with a national position.

If we can keep the actual money out of the campaign and show support at the cooperative and sharing level, cost could be reduced, the public can get a clearer picture who is supporting who, and their message still is released. More importantly, the states and the people within those states hold the elections without federally controlled and manipulated special interest groups controlling what a state decides in an election.

If they have honor and integrity in their intent, their mission will spread, they will focus on the limited time and hopefully use it wisely and not as a projectile on the other runners, their focus can be on establishing good relations with the people without heavy handed politics from within, and gives the “under-dog” a more level playing field by eliminating the disadvantage of sucking up to the big corporations purse holders.

The people will benefit from this because their faith in the process will give less corporate control, they might actually get a non-party candidate elected, and should motivate those who do hear them to spread the message to the sleepers who gave up their privilege. Hopefully, the ads will have more content than just a “happy-go-lucky” family and then, “I’m so and so and I approve this message”. The ads should have their vision of America, their resume on how they have lead in the past, and agree to support the federal and state constitutions so help them God.

Campaigning should not be a circus, designed to impress the public on how loud, big or fancy their subject is, but instead on someone who can show that if they can manage the small resources given to run for office, they would probably be a good bet they’ll do the same if elected to run a greater responsibility, working for The People.

Another way to change the way we finance Campaigns is to change the dynamic of the campaign itself.

“Citizens are increasingly showing their displeasure with the political process by not voting.

NOTA (None Of The Above) allows the public to not choose between the lesser of two evils by placing a NOTA candidate on the ballot. If a NOTA candidate wins then there is a new election on the previous candidates cannot run in the new election.

Including NOTA on the ballot would give citizens a reason to go to the polls even if they aren’t enthusiastic about the choices, and would be far more effective than campaign finance reform (alone) in reducing the overwhelming advantages of incumbents. NOTA might even discourage highly negative campaigning, since candidates would be running for the approval of voters, not just to offend fewer people than their opponents.”

AVOC (Annual Vote of Confidence) allows the public to hold those politicians accountable to campaign pledges by voting them out of office. If a majority of electors have no confidence for an incumbent then they are removed from office and a new election is held. AVOC would do away with the need for term limits.

By adding an AVOC (Annual Vote Of Confidence) to the campaign finance reform discussion is necessary as well. An AVOC serves as an automatic mechanism for removal if incumbents do not do what they say they were going to do. This lessens the influence of special interests as it would not be practical to spend millions on a political campaign only to see that politician removed the following year for not being popular with the people.

These solutions will greatly reduce spending on campaign naturally and without a myriad of laws and will promote a greater participation by the public.

We focus on participation for two reasons. First, if enough people come into the sys­tem at the low end there may be less reason to worry about the top. Second, height­ened participation would be healthy for its own sake. A more engaged citizenry would mean a greater share of the public following political events and participating in public life. And the evidence seems to suggest that giving and doing are reciprocal activities: volunteering stimulates giving, while giving small amounts seems to heighten non-financial forms of participation by people who feel more invested in the process.

For these reasons, we aim to promote equality and civic engagement by enlarging the participatory pie instead of shrinking it. The Supreme Court has ruled out pursuing equality or civic engagement by constraining speech. But the Court has never ruled out pursuing these goals through policies that do not constrain speech.

The following states have introduced NOTA legislation:

Wyoming (1991), Colorado (1993), Michigan (1995), Ohio (1996), Pennsylvania (1996), and Arizona (1997), but has not come near passing anywhere yet. Nevada has had non-binding NOTA for state wide offices since 1976.

How it would work.

In any state with a binding “None of the Above” ballot option, the list of candidates for each office would be followed by the votable line “None of the Above; For a New Election”, or something similar.  If that option gets more votes than any candidate for the office, then no one is elected to the office; instead, a follow-up by-election with new candidates must be held to fill that office, until a candidate wins a plurality of votes among all other candidates including “None of the Above.”

Some advantages of such a proposal include but are not limited to:

• Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based “reform” movements.
• A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed.
• All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; “None of the Above” gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a “No” vote on a ballot question.
• Would end the “must hire” elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar “lesser evil.”
• Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives.
• Office holders, knowing they face “None of the Above” in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate.

The above proposals would enhance individual and state sovereignty by encouraging and promoting involvement in the political process by “We the People” thereby reducing the influence of the elite few.

As well, the British Government as well as New Zealand make use of “a vote of confidence” throughout their system of government.

Note: All information on “None of the Above” was compiled from and is available at http://nota.org/