MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “More Rules, More Money,” by Jan Baran and Robert Bauer (Op-Ed, Aug. 8), might be summarized this way: Money will find its way into campaigns, regardless of how much “reform” we enact.

The conclusion appears inescapable. If we are to wrest our politicians from the grips of the special interests, we, the voters, must outspend those special interests.

The special interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars and reap hundreds of billions of dollars in return. It would be well worth our taxpayer money to split $10 billion across the candidates — in proportion to the number of contributors each has, or through similar means. The upfront costs will be significant, but the benefits will be tremendous.

Lee Newberg
Albany, Aug. 8, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Jan Baran and Robert Bauer complain about the nation’s campaign finance laws and state that the laws still have not eliminated all corruption.

Mr. Baran and Mr. Bauer, who have represented Republican and Democratic Party committees respectively, have facilitated efforts by their clients to undermine the campaign finance laws, and then opposed efforts in Congress to deal with the resulting scandals. These evasions included the corrupt soft money system and the use of corporate and labor union funds to influence federal elections through sham “issue ads.”

It is no surprise that these lawyers representing different political parties tell us they meet periodically for cozy lunches to discuss their mutual disdain for the campaign finance laws.

It is hardly a secret that they and other operatives in both parties are not competitors here, but rather collaborators seeking to maximize the opportunities to raise political money in any amount and from any source, regardless of the potential for corruption of our public officials. This is why these lawyers opposed, unsuccessfully, the McCain-Feingold reform law.

Regulated entities and their lawyers usually oppose being regulated, so the complaints of Mr. Baran and Mr. Bauer should be understood in that context.

Trevor Potter
Fred Wertheimer
Washington, Aug. 10, 2006
The writers are, respectively, president of the Campaign Legal Center and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and president of Democracy 21.

•

To the Editor:

It is ultimately too pessimistic to talk about election reforms without stressing what is at stake.

It’s true that incremental tinkering with the private financing system is an open invitation to lawyers, candidates and campaign contributors to work their will. What we need is a system that fosters competition and encourages more of our best leaders to run for office.

Is it right that we are forced to labor under an election system that limits the pool from which we pick our leaders to those with great wealth, access to wealth or a famous last name?

Voluntary public financing of elections is the only way to expand the pool of candidates who have the resources to compete. With sufficient financing, voters will be able to learn enough about candidates to make informed choices.

For each and every election for the White House, the House and the Senate, that would cost only $6 per citizen a year.

John Rauh
President
Americans for Campaign Reform
New Castle, N.H., Aug. 8, 2006

•

To the Editor:

The authors of “More Rules, More Money” rail against attempts to make elections more about the quality of candidates, rather than their fund-raising ability (or personal wealth).

Meanwhile, Jan Baran has written “The Election Law Primer for Corporations,” to enable corporations to maximize their power over elections.

We can continue to allow corporations to convert vast financial power into political power, or we can choose to create the democratic republic promised by our Constitution.

The options are mutually exclusive. Are Americans ready to demand the latter?

Jeff Milchen
Director, ReclaimDemocracy.org
Bozeman, Mont., Aug. 8, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Jan Baran and Robert Bauer do not mention the growing movement to establish full public financing of elections known as Clean Elections. Clean Elections gives candidates a chance to run for office without being beholden to powerful lobbyists and wealthy campaign donors by offering qualified candidates a public grant to run their campaign.

Clean Elections is law in seven states and two municipalities. In Maine and Arizona, where their statewide systems have been up and running since 2000, Clean Elections has become the norm. Currently, 10 of 11 statewide officeholders in Arizona, including the governor, and more than 70 percent of the Maine Legislature is made up of candidates who ran and won with public financing. Clean Elections promotes a greater diversity of people running for office and more competition.

Arguing that the best campaign reform is no reform is nothing more than a call to make bribery legal in our political process. Meaningful, common-sense campaign reforms do work, and we should look no further than Clean Elections as the antidote to cure our ailing democracy. It’s time to make our elections about voters, not big campaign donors.

Nick Nyhart
Executive Director
Public Campaign
Washington, Aug. 8, 2006