There are many potential aspects to electoral reform which we will mention below. But with the recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United confirms corporations as “persons” carrying the 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Dealing with this issue comprehensively seems a necessary precursor of other forms of electoral reform, lest the Supremes follow this same approach and declare these reforms as unconstitutionally denying corporate free speech. So the first goal is making the process of buying our representatives directly illegal.
[The following items are suggested for inclusion. Development awaits the work of committees made up of those knowledgeable about the subject.]
Section 1.01 [Re]defining “free speech”
Please refer to http://boughtspeech.blogspot.com Free speech issues directly affect the “legality” of many electoral reforms and therefore are an important antecedent to making the reforms. We believe that the necessary changes can be made through legislation rather than the more difficult process of amending the Constitution.
Section 1.02 Internet: free and equal access guarantee
Please refer to http://boughtspeech.blogspot.com/2010/02/proposed-legislation-free-speech.html
Many organizations exist which have put much work into understanding the issues and proposing the necessary actions to remedy the corporate takeover threats as they exist today. This is currently a hot issue with actions before the FEC, etc. We hope they will be joining our effort and writing this material.
Section 1.03 Electoral reform:
Our government is bought and paid for on all levels. Very few people can enter elected office on the basis of the desire to actually serve the public without immense personal or other funding. The only way to eliminate the corrupting influence of big money from our governmental process is to eliminate every possible form of advantage altogether on all levels so that the playing field is guaranteed to be level. While it is desired to keep things as simple as possible, at the same time we want to design it free from loopholes as we can.[6]
These are some of the issues which may become included:
(a) Public financing of all campaigns for public office on all levels.In order to create the money to finance public funding of elections, we propose a corporate excise tax in an amount equal to the average money they spent on lobbying over the past 3 years to create revenues equal to or greater than that needed to fund the creation and operation of the National Elections Website and public funding of elections. It is a perfectly logical approach. They are already spending that money to influence [buy] our representatives. In a sense, it would only transfer money that they are already spending -- i.e. it's not taking anything away from their owners' profits. So suppose we simply take that same amount, and use it to share the cost of elections equitably among those who have used the power of extreme wealth to buy our government. We believe that's entirely fair.
Seven states already have public financing of election laws on their books: Arizona,Connecticut, [Albuquerque]New Mexico, [Portland] Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Their laws typically include four rules: Collect a set number of small contributions from their own district; agree to voluntary spending limits; accept no donations from private [corporate]sources; and not spend one’s own money on the campaign. If a candidate agrees to abide by these rules, they receive full public financing. Note: 2004 elections cost $4 billion. Mostly from groups seeking legislative favors or contracts.
(b) Instant run off elections
“Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the American English term for a voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, most commonly in single-winner elections. Indeed, IRV can be considered a special case of single transferable vote for the case where there is a single position to be filled. If no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term "instant runoff" is used because the method is said to simulate a series of runoff elections tallied in rounds…” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
There are a number of important advantages: Runoff elections are extremely expensive. They delay the filling of the office. Allowing the candidate receiving the largest number of votes, but not a majority, makes voting for an alternative candidate— often called a "spoiler" – in effect a vote for the candidate who least represents your point of view. E.g. voting for a Green candidate who has little chance of actually winning, but who best represents your views, takes away from the Democratic candidate who would be your second choice. Or on the other end of the spectrum, voting for a single issue right to life candidate of Libertarian background takes away from the Republican candidate and almost guarantees a Democratic victory even in a conservative district. It works both ways.
The corollary of this observation is that instant run off elections encourages the participation of minority candidates to run for office as the fullest expression of our democratic values.
(c) Proportional balloting
Choice Voting is a form of proportional representation (PR) that is widely used by the world's established democracies. Under choice voting, representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received. Choice voting also assures that political parties or candidates will gain the percentage of legislative seats that reflects their public support. Source: http://www.fairvote.org/choice-voting
This system is often used to choose from a large field of candidates for multiple positions such as members of a board or committee.
(d) Ballot qualification [preliminary]
o Standardized to be uniform, reasonably fulfilled and fair to all parties seeking office.
o Must be a resident of the district which they would represent
o Must be registered to vote in that district
o Other qualifications such as minimum age, citizenship or other reasonable factors and/or as constitutionally [?] established
o Some public financing of election laws or proposals requires small individual contributions and/or signatures of a small percentage of the registered voters in that district
§ This number should be large enough to discourage purely vanity candidates, but small enough to encourage serious minority candidates
e) Required disclosures [preliminary]
o The requirement that every candidate fully disclose any personal, professional or monetary relationship with any entity that has or could receive benefit from the office for which he is a candidate
o Any personal health or other limitations which would materially affect the candidate’s ability to represent his constituency [?]
o Must fully disclose the [x] most recent income tax filings [?]
o Any material misrepresentation of the candidate’s background, qualifications for office or relevant experiences shall be grounds for immediate disqualification from that election prior to the voting date or shall result in automatic and immediate impeachment if in office.
(f) Any Use of Deceit or Distortion of the Facts in the Electoral Process is a crime
This needs a lot of thought, but the way the extreme right is willing to make up stories out of whole cloth, like the “Swift Boaters” who besmirched Senator Kerry’s Viet Nam record, or the “birthers” who deny Obama’s American citizenship, or Palin and others insisted that the health reform legislation included “death panels” – all of them preposterous and without factual foundation, but repeated so often as to have a major impact on public opinion and the election results. This list also included the notions that Saddam Husein had large stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction and that he was in close collusion with Al Quaida which are still widely believed today despite overwhelmingly clear evidence to the contrary. The list of examples goes on and on. Can we draw meaningful legislation without genuinely crippling free speech? It is illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater or to directly incite people to violence. Certainly we can formulate a reasonable law which will make dishonest people think twice about using outright lies to attempt to change the outcome of elections. It needs to include personal responsibility for the truthfulness in the conduct of elections. Our other proposals on the limits of free speech and the use of money in the electoral process will do much to curtail these abuses. Still, it’s wrong! People shouldn’t be allowed a free hand to do this without any recourse for the rest of us.
(g) Election campaign funds [7] [preliminary]
o only individuals people may make contributions to campaign funds
o Individual contributions are limited to [a small number or the order of $500.00 maximum].
o It is a crime for any companies, unions, educational organizations, interest groups including non-profits to make contributions to any political campaign or ballot initiative.
o It is a crime for any organization [as above] may make any attempt to require or otherwise induce individuals in their employ to make individual contributions or to give them money for that purpose.
Note: see the sections on the universal Internet Campaign Website, and the requirements for all relevant media to provide free and equal access in order to present their views and respond to opposing views elsewhere.
(h) The conduct of political campaigns [preliminary]
o Permanent rules that guarantee fairness by law as follows:
§ The legal provision of equal and free access to all media for the conduct of campaigns-- e.g. weekly articles of a given length written and endorsed by the candidates themselves – not by others.
§ All media shall be required to provide a clearly identified section for the print media and an election segment for all broadcast media which announces the times and locations of all election related town meetings.,
o “Town meeting” with open access to all qualified candidates
§ Number of meetings
· At least one meeting for local races
· 2-4 for state wide races by agreement among all qualified candidates
· For all national offices – Congress and the President at least 4
· Subjects shall include at least domestic policy, foreign policy, economic policy goals
§ The venue to be provided free of charge in a location reasonably near the center of the district to be represented [if local] by the appropriate level of government [e.g. a local school for a school board position]
§ Standard formats should be established suitable to the office and the issues in such a way as to create no advantage to any candidate.
· Overall time would normally be 2 hours, with one half hour equally divided among
· In the first election cycle all candidates would make their proposals and the format then chosen by consensus
· Those formats would then remain constant unless there is a new consensus
§ Selection of Moderators shall be determined by consensus of all qualified candidates from a list they themselves create.
· Candidates would be invited to submit suggestions for questions to be asked.
(i) Bribery
o In our democracy, public service is one of the highest callings and demands the complete moral integrity insuring that the legitimate public interests of one’s constituents are served. Zero tolerance is permissible for infraction of laws governing the offering, giving or receiving of bribes as herein defined.
o It shall be criminal for any individual to offer or give any material inducement to any public servant for any reason [or in any amount over $500.00] It shall be illegal for any organization or corporation to make any campaign contributions as all.
o The individual and/or organization so doing shall be fined in the amount of a reasonable estimate of the material benefits they may have received as the result of their bribe, forbidden to ever again hold any government contract and subject to a mandatory 10 years in jail.
o It shall be criminal for any public official or candidate to receive any financial or material benefits from any source other than their public salaries and benefits – period. [Exceptions may be made for their own earned income independent of their elected office as long at this employment in no way influences or gains benefit from their public office.]
o Any infraction by a candidate or office holder will result in immediate and automatic dismissal from office on proof of receipt of such bribes, the complete return of the value to be placed into general revenues of the level of government the office serves, a prohibition of ever holding public office again and a sentence of not less than 10 years in prison.
Section 1.04 Senator Harkins “filibuster” rule
The filibuster is not without merit as a safeguard against abuses of the majority against the minority. The danger is in its abuse by the minority against the majority making a so-called "super majority" necessary to conduct the normal business of government. Senator Harkins outlines the abuse by Republicans to block over 200 bills plus even routine appointments virtually crippling the government; his rule reduces from 60 to 58 to 56 votes necessary for cloture every two days.
Section 1.05 Eliminate a single senator’s ability to “hold” bills
Section 1.06 Simple majority vote to pass revenue bills
Section 1.07 Remove all ear marks
Section 1.08 Line Item Veto [?]
Section 1.09 Decentralization of the public media with strict limitations on control of any meaningful sector of the public.
Section 1.10 Election of the President by popular vote and the elimination of the Electoral College
The below is retained as a model for future use.
Preamble:
Whereas, government service and/or engaging in the business of government in any form is meant to be an honor requiring the highest dedication to serve the public welfare and to improve and maintain the common wealth for the public.
Whereas, any actions contrary to the above are directly detrimental to the nation’s business and its democratic function, and is a direct affront to all that our nation stands for;
Whereas, it is therefore incumbent upon the Congress to pass and the Courts to rigorously enforce the most rigorous safeguards against any abuse of that public trust by any party as part of or in relationship with the business of government on any level – Federal, state or local:
Whereas, sound business practices requires that all business relationships with the government to procure goods, services, or other needs of the public shall be solely based on demonstrable objective criteria such as price, quality and/or reliability, or other reasons germane to the specific relationship.
“Corruption of public office” shall be defined as and will include at least:
The above and/or other issues will be created by the combined work of people working on election reform and legal advisors who are working on these issues.
[1] Ever wonder why our representatives can’t hear our voices? The following FEW lobby groups dole out $294,000,000 per year on which representatives are totally dependent for getting elected. Lawyers $58M, retirees $36 M, real estate $33M, Health professionals $32m, securities and investments $29m, insurance industry $21M, commercial banks $16M, pharmaceutical $14M, Defense $13M, electric utilities $12M, oil and gas $11, Computers $10M Israeli lobby $9M. Source: “The Israeli Lobby” by Stephen Zunes, Tikkun Magazine, Nov./Dec 2007, page 50
[2] Please see the separate article showing the magnitude of only a few campaign contributions
[3] Income tax is a real knee jerk issue even among liberals. Please read the entire tax presentation before you decide whether or not we can and should include it. It really is the second pole of the issue of big money controlling everything. If it takes a direct confrontation with a mistaken belief, it just may be worth it. Even if we have to back down in the end, including it will certainly help raise tax levels above their recent historic low level of 35% tops.
[5] They don’t like to say “huge” incomes which they are as that raises possible moral objection.
[6] My thought process tends towards the complex. Many of the specific details I cover may be covered far more simply and comprehensively. Your input and suggestions are welcome.
[7] I personally like the model used in the ballot initiative “The California Fair Elections Campaign” of 2008 [newsletter @caclean.org ]or watch Bill Moyer’s video on the clean money campaign at http://www.caclean.org/materials/watch.php
Contact us WeDontHaveFreeSpeech@hotmail.com
Annotated Table of Contents:
No comments:
Post a Comment