Guest Editorial 9.11, November 2007, by John D. Lyle Changing the Bottom Line Editor's note: while there is plenty of interest and inspiration this month, it seemed to me important that this particular subject should receive emphasis. When John's ready-made editorial arrived in my mailbox, I thought it a perfect opportunity to take a little break. So here it is. The editor herself, like John Lyle and David Valentine, is one of several Ester-area residents toting the Clean Campaign Initiative signature books around with them. We think you'll agree that this is a worthy effort. A recent editorial (Oct. 20, 2007) I submitted to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner about Alaska campaign finance reform elicited several interesting comments, many from longtime Alaskans known for their solid conservative Republican ideals and voting records. People have stopped me in the post office, grocery store, coffeeshop, and on the street, and said that they not only agreed with the main points raised in the editorial but that they felt strongly that campaign finance reform was long overdue. Several asked if they could sign my petition book in hopes of getting a Clean Elections citizen's initiative on the 2008 ballot. Although I knew the Clean Elections initiative was gaining traction across the state, I questioned whether its supporters included a sizeable number of Fairbanks-area folks, well known for their disdain for anything that smacks of government. But it seems that discontent with status-quo Alaska politics has gained even the far reaches of the Interior, and has been spilling out onto the editorial pages. In an October 6th News-Miner editorial, "Dissatisfied Alaska Republicans" longtime Republican activist Cam Carlson described repeated, failed attempts to prod the Alaska Republican Central Committee to pass a resolution calling for honesty and integrity in government, things which seem in short supply these days. Carlson wasn't alone in her dissatisfaction. Ester political writer Douglas Yates voiced a harsher tone in his recent FDNM piece in which he also took the GOP to task, specifically for crony indebtedness and payoffs from years of being awash on oil money. A friend pointed out that Republicans don't have a monopoly on greed and corruption and that resolutions similar to Carlson's should be presented to the Democratic and to all Alaska's political parties. Calls for new directions have also recently come from the top. In a 9/2/07 Anchorage Daily News interview, Governor Sarah Palin stated that changes in Alaska politics should be regarded as not only positive and welcome, but that changes were desperately needed and inevitable. Palin didn't shy away from mentioning Alaska's state and federal representatives as well as VECO and the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), and said that Senator Ted Stevens knows were she stands on that issue. "Alaska has got to change its image," Palin said in the interview. "The only way that we are going to gain the trust of the rest of the United States is to prove that we can do things right…honestly and transparently." Arguably, regaining the trust of everyday Alaskans is just as important. Perhaps others should take notice. According to the News-Miner, Representative Don Young has received $180,000 from VECO since 1993, including more than $34,000 from VECO's Smith and Allen alone. Young has stated that he has no intention of returning any VECO money. Not surprisingly, critical reactions to Alaska's unfolding GOP scandals have rippled from coast to coast. Newspaper opinion pages have echoed with voices from diverse political perspectives such as those of Carlson, Yates, and Palin, and have pointed to similar deficits in our political system. One such deficit that has become increasingly clear to Alaskans and many Americans is that buying influence has been nifty for wealthy CEOs but hasn’t been so great for average folks. Increasing numbers of people have come to the conclusion that whether Republican or Democrat, big money in politics has in part eroded public trust, increased voter cynicism and apathy, and cheapened the nature of the election process despite obscene amounts of money burned up on campaign advertising. With this as a backdrop, Alaskans for Clean Elections, a statewide grassroots group, has been collecting the 24,000 signatures required to place a Clean Elections initiative on the 2008 ballot. Supporters promote the initiative as a significant step in reducing corruption by removing corporate and special interest money from politics through public funding of elections. Qualifying candidates would gather a required number of required signatures and $5 donations—and agree to strict spending limits—to qualify for public funding. Organizers point to significant benefits of Clean Election reform, which include affirming the principle of one person/one vote and increasing the accountability of elected officials. The initiative would also create genuine opportunities for qualified individuals to run for office who would otherwise never be able to compete in big-money politics. Perhaps most significant is the reduction in incessant demands for fundraising, thus tempering the explosive growth of campaign spending (and influence buying). Clean Elections initiatives are nothing new. They've been working in Arizona and Maine, and other states such as Connecticut are contemplating similar initiatives. Former Governor Wally Hickel endorses the initiative, as does the Bristol Bay Borough; Lake and Peninsula Borough; City and Borough of Sitka; and the Homer City Council. Recent polls conducted by the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) have shown that 69.8 percent of Alaskans support Clean Elections, a sign that disgruntled, disgusted voters of all political stripes are seriously considering a change in the rules which would force elected officials to be truly more ethical and transparent in their work, as we expect them to be. Several longtime Republican friends expressed concerns about increased government involvement in elections. One said that the words "Public Financing" raised the hair on the back of his neck. Others voiced concerns about the potential costs of public financing. Clean Elections organizers offer that if Clean Election legislators had been in office during the 2006 PPT tax vote, they would have been able to pass a tax based on its merit, which could have raised an additional $1 billion more in annual revenues. Just one year of this increased state revenue, they say, would pay for every campaign in the state for the next 200 years ($5 million times 200 years equals $1 billion). Clean Elections organizers also point out that candidates have the choice whether to accept public financing. Candidates can't be mandated to use it and clearly some will choose not to do so. If a Clean Elections candidate is outspent by an opponent not opting for public funding, the state will match the opponent's spending by giving the like amount to the CE candidate. The cost to the state depends on the number of candidates who chose to participate in public financing. “Maine and Arizona currently have over 80% of candidates running as clean elections candidates”, says Alaskans for Clean Elections Chair Tim June. “When we in Alaska get to that point, then all of the clean candidate vs. clean candidate races will be limited to $40,000 max for a House race, thus greatly reducing campaign spending overall.” One could certainly argue the benefits of restricting amounts of money spent by ALL candidates, whether they receive public financing; however, as Tim June explained, the Supreme Court’s Buckley vs. Valio decision ruled it unconstitutional to limit campaign money, stating that money constitutes “free speech." June explained that the matching funds provision in the Clean Elections initiative is a voluntary means of essentially accomplishing the same goal. With increasing numbers of clean elections candidates running for office, the bar will be raised and real change will occur. Evidently, political/campaign reform is what many voters say they want and expect. How badly people want it and how they’ll go about getting it is yet to be seen, yet elected officials are certainly taking notice. Governor Palin ended her Anchorage Daily News interview with a strong admonition: "If you want to be in public service, it's being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons, not to get rich." June wholeheartedly agreed, adding, "With clean elections, Alaskans can once again trust that elected officials are doing the work of the people, not the bidding of their large campaign contributors." For more information contact: www.alaskansforcleanelections.org. Tim June can be reached at (907) 766-2028. The Clean Elections Initiative and poll results can be found at www.akpirg.org. | ||
 | | |
