It's Election-Shock Therapy

#56, November 29, 2000

 

A few weeks before E-Day, a TV campaign ad inspired me to start on a new song:

 

"Lord make me numb / Lord make me dumb /Put me back in the womb / sucking on my thumb.

The sound bites are killing me, the cat fights are chilling me, this LCD* democracy ain't exactly thrilling me. (*lowest common denominator.) // Give me election-shock therapy… election-shock therapy / Send the doctors with the paddles to come and take care of me / I need election-shock therapy… election-shock therapy / From Miami to Seattle, this country's really scaring me."

 

Nothing like a cheerful song to lift your spirits, I say. The campaign is over, but that doesn't mean you no longer count (especially if you work for the Broward County election office!) Oh, hey, speaking of Florida and the infamous butterfly ballot, did you hear about Sebastopol's Julia Butterfly ballot? One box for "Nader", one box for "Gore/Bush/etc." You gotta laugh to keep from crying, I say.

 

As I write this, the presidential election is still in limbo, 15 days and "counting." But it's not too early to call the clear winner, in just about every election nationwide: money. Money, coming overwhelmingly from businesses seeking favorable treatment from the government. Whether it's for a costs-plus weapons contract, protection from lawsuits over defective products, or construction of profitably-placed freeway interchange, corporations want officials on whom they can count.

 

Time Magazine reports that money spent on Federal and State election campaigns this year jumped to an estimated $4 billion, up 50% from the already-bloated 1996 figures. Locally, the signs indicate similar jumps as well. As of October 21, each of the three winning City Council candidates had collected into the high twenty thousands, double what the closest runner-up had gathered. But judging from the mailings received in the final few days, candidate Bryant Moynihan has taken Petaluma campaign spending to new heights. The big problem is that we won't know how much he got, and from whom, until the final report deadline in January.

 

The threat to our democracy is not from old voting machines, but from the new campaign money machine. What are we going to do about it? At the Federal level, it's simple: ban "soft money" contributions by enacting the McCain-Feingold legislation. The soft money loophole allows contributors, like the attendees at $10,000 a plate dinners, to bypass the Watergate-era candidate contribution limits. Soft money is given to the Republican and Democratic parties instead of their candidates, who then buy advertising which supports their candidates without naming them directly. Tricky, Dicky!

 

In the last three presidential/congressional elections, these unrestricted soft money contributions have grown from $80 million (1991-92) to $262 million (95-96) to an estimated $500 million in this election. The overwhelming majority of soft money (82% in 95-96)  comes not from interest groups like the NRA or Sierra Club, but from corporations and wealthy individuals Topping that list were three corporations representing America's most destructive addictions: Phillip Morris (nicotene), Seagrams (alcohol), and Atlantic Richfield (fossil fuel.) See www.citizen.org/congress/ for more info about campaign finance reform.

 

Locally, there's a lot we can do. Council member Jane Hamilton has introduced a resolution to reform City Council campaign financing.  It would limit individuals' contributions to $200, and require candidates to report all contributions received up to the day before the election. This eliminates the four-figure and often final-week "stealth" contributions from land development political action committees. It also would provide modest matching funds for candidates who raise over $4k on their own and pledge not to exceed $20,000.

 

Like most American's, talk about election reform made me numb. That's changed. I'll be regularly covering this issue, and urge you to give it some time in your busy life. Our efforts to improve Petaluma and the world will always be against a strong current until we get upstream and stop the flow of selfish influence from the wealthiest few. Let's make the corporations play fair, and give control of our democracy to the voter, not the dollar.