Question No. 7: Gregg Underheim Response
Gregg Underheim did not respond to this question by the deadline. His position, described in an e-mail received Oct. 13, appears as a comment below.
posted by Miles Maguire at 1:14 PM
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Candidate Comparison
Join The Debate
Previous Posts
Learn More About The Candidates
Newsfeeds
Atom News Feed
1 Comments:
The following is a statement from Gregg Underheim:
The number one evil in elections today is the independent expenditure.
Independent expenditures are campaign expenditures made by special interest groups or front groups completely apart from candidate knowledge or approval. Money raised for independent expenditures is not subject to the same limitations that money raised for candidates is. Today there are campaigns in which special interest groups, through independent expenditures out spend candidates.
The most aggressive player in the independent expenditure game is WEAC, the teacher’s union. It is the source of their political power. They regularly spend $50,000 to $100,000 in the final weeks of campaigns to elect their candidates. Any candidate who faces that prospect would be a fool to take public financing because in taking public financing a candidate agrees to limit his spending to around $18,000.
Furthermore, there is another type of advertising called advocacy advertising. This advertising focuses on specific issues. It mentions a candidate, usually in a negative way, but does not advocate for the election of anyone. This type of advertising can be done with union dues. This money must be paid by union members and may advocate positions they do not support.
Sen. Mike Ellis’s plan has some very positive points. The best element of his plan deals with letting the political parties raise money and give it to candidates to combat independent expenditures. Unfortunately, even political parties are subject to fundraising restrictions. Therefore, the special interest groups even have an advantage over the political parties. Furthermore, the actual mechanics or raising money and getting it to a candidate are problematic. In the last days of a campaign it is frequently not possible to raise money, get it to a candidate, and get out advertising. So, Sen. Ellis’s recognition of the problem and his honest efforts to address it are commendable; but, they may not actually solve the problem.
The answer to the problem is to require all monies used for campaigns be collected in the same way, through individual contributions, in limited amounts. Additionally, in the day of the Internet it is easy to make all contributions publicly known. I support doing so for contributions over $100.
Beyond the problem of campaign financing is the problem of legislators being too close to powerful interest groups. There is an element of self-interest in that situation. Legislators may either seek campaign help or future employment from those interests. One solution would be to disallow employment of legislators for a year after leaving office as a lobbyist for special interests.
Additionally, consideration should be given to a return to a part time legislature. It could be accomplished in this fashion. The legislature would set a date certain on which salaries would begin to decrease. Then in each successive session of the legislature pay would decrease to a lower level until the legislature became truly a public service, not a job.
The downside of a part time legislature is that the governor will have great power. Some will like this. Others won’t.
Post a Comment
<< Home