Main | An Innovative Idea For The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard From Carol Shea-Porter »

The "Granny D Commission" Might Find A Solution To Big Money In Politics

What is the solution to the ever-increasing role of money in elections?  And how will democracy itself suffer if we don't find that solution?
.
Twelve other states, including Maine, have what many call a "Clean Elections" process where public money is put aside and is allocated to candidates who qualify under stringent guidelines, with lots of oversight.  Those candidates who agree to criteria which include raising a number of small donations under $100 each to show general support can get funding for certain campaigns.  Here in New Hampshire, it might be for candidates for Governor, Governor's Council, and State Senate.
.
Right now, campaigns for Governor have been exceeding $2,000,000, and much more.  Many campaigns for Governor's Council and State Senate in each party exceeded $100,000 in 2006, and will go well over that this year. 
.
Fundraising especially when aimed at registered lobbyists and political action committees comes with strings.  It really does.  Candidates can say a $500 contribution doesn't mean they have been "bought."  That's probably -- hopefully is -- true for all.  BUT, that $500 contribution does "buy" a listening ear, and gets those telephone calls returned. 
.
Solutions?  Well, a bill passed a month ago and signed this past week by Governor John Lynch might find some.  The "Granny D Commission" bill signing on Friday afternoon was done with whoopee -- as a group of a couple of dozen fourth graders touring the State House joined Granny's volunteers and friends and cheered as soon as Governor John Lynch signed House Bill 794, then presented Doris "Granny D" Haddock with the pen he used to sign it.   She is 98 now, and as primary sponsor of the legislation, I've promised her that by her 100th birthday we'll have "Clean Elections" in New Hampshire.  It can happen.
.

The Granny D Commission, which resulted after more than 35 hours of open committee meetings which I chaired since last year, will be composed of seven high-level men and women who will consider how to create and fund a system for New Hampshire similar to those Clean Election laws elsewhere.  It's not easy, but it would meant that candidates who don't want to go to lobbyists or other big contributors and beg for money will be able to be competitive in their races.  IF we do find that solution, our democracy will be all the better for it.  

A large bipartisan group of House and Senate members have supported the concept, including some previous candidates for major office, including John Rauh, Walter Peterson, Jim Rubins, and Paul McEachern.

The dilemma for candidates to get large amounts of money in order run for office hit home during the past several weeks.  In both the House and Senate we've been debating legislation that would reduce lobbyist disclosure reporting and allow more money from corporations and unions.   Some politicians do indeed want to open the floodgates even more -- to let the money rush in.

But just this past week, I worked with Secretary of State Bill Gardner and Portsmouth Representative Paul McEachern to defeat House Bill 91 -- which would have allowed lobbyists a 10 day or two week "grace period" before even having to register, and allow some lobbyists 75 hours of free lobbying before they even had to register -- essentially, lobbyist registration by the "honor system."  That was killed on Wednesday.   Some lobbyists wanted that bill so they could contribute to campaigns without actually being called a "lobbyist." 

And on Thursday, part of another bill -- Senate Bill 482 -- which would have repealed most of the state's code of ethics law and allow lobbyists to be placed as voting members onto state boards, committees, and commissions was taken out.  After nearly a two hour debate, the vote was 163 to 100, with the majority representing a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans supporting an amendment I offered to "repeal the repeal" of the state's code of ethics.  In past years, lobbyists could get certain "rewards" through their contributions by being appointed to positions of influence, but the current code of ethics was put in place in 2006 to stop that "tradition."  On this issue, the majority of the House once again stood for honesty and openness in our state government.

.

But the battle continues, and unless something like Clean Elections is created in New Hampshire, the future will only bring more and more money to the system of politics and elections, and that's not a good future for any of us who want to guarantee honesty in our government, and a democracy where one doesn't have to be rich, or have rich friends, to run for office. 

Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:21PM by Registered CommenterRep. Jim Splaine | Comments11 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (11)

Aha. So the state gets to decide who gets campaign funding. With OUR tax dollars. And of course they will be completely objective, impartial and nonpartisan. Not.
May 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRowland
I can't see how anyone expects this bill to hold up. The US Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Political Donations equal free speech. This is why every time the McCain Fingold bill has been challenged it too has lost.

This is unconstitutional and strips away free speech!
May 19, 2008 | Registered CommenterRichard Barnes
Richard, that is not accurate. The Supreme Court has ruled that "money is speech," mostly. But the Granny D doesn't even approach this issue. Voluntary public financing of elections is something the Court has uniformly upheld. People can decide not to participate in the public financing schemes in Arizona, Maine, Connecticut and dozens of cities. If they do participate - they must abide by the rules of the system. The Court has never challenged this system.
May 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterStu
Stu, if that is the case then I will admit I do not have a good understanding of the goal here. I asked Jim Splaine to explain it in more detail and gave my understand in another article he wrote about it but he ignored my questions.

I would still like his explanation of it. The wording found here http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/HB0794.html
Basically the bill is doing nothing but creating a committee that will establish the plan so all I have to go by as far as what the "plan" is is what Jim has posted here in his column which I am under the impression that it will replace public funding, not be an option to it. If that is the over all goal they are pushing towards then I say again it is unconstitutional.

So Jim, I ask publicly once again, what is the goal of this bill? What is the idea behind "clean elections"? Are you seeking to prevent someone from using their money if they so choose? Or limit how much private citizens can contribute to a campaign?
May 19, 2008 | Registered CommenterRichard Barnes
Richard, I appreciate your question, but on this and some other issues I write about there is vast information out there. Maybe you can do a little work yourself to find out about some of these causes before opposing them. I certainly research "the other side" on these issues, and attend hours of hearings on bills, many of which I support, others I don't, so I can learn about them.

I read in detail about many of these issues, and go out of my way to understand them. The "Clean Elections" concept has had books written about them, and with a little "Google Search" you can find fascinating stuff.

So I'm not avoiding you, I just prioritize -- I work at a $10.30 an hour job four days a week so that I can spend three days a week on my $100 a year job in the Legislature. Perhaps if you want to get more up-to-speed on some of these issues, you should run for the House or Senate yourself and begin attending the hours and hours of debate and discussion these ideas generate.

But one of my priorities in life is not to persuade you of anything. I appreciate the dialogue and certainly engage in it with my constituents, and I offer my thoughts VIA Blog posts, and engaging your often very thought-provoking commentary when I can, but I'm not dedicating my life to answering each of Richard Barnes' questions. Life is too short, so I'm sure you won't be too critical that I pick-and-choose when to jump to my keyboard.
May 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim

This is such an important issue. It's demoralizing how little time the public in general is willing to invest into understanding the issue.

I've said this before--the public is so fickle. We hate the influence of money in politics and wring our hands. But when a rational solution presents itself we don't want to hear about it.

I applaud Granny D and the many people who have worked tirelessly on this.
May 19, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterChaz Proulx
Thanks for the non answer Jim. I'm not looking for explanations of the bill, I read it and I think I have a good idea what it does. I'm asking you what your goal is here... your thinking behind the bill. That is not something I would expect to find written up in random books.

As for your suggestion I run for state rep, believe me I've thought about it but unfortunately I work 50 to 60 hours as a computer engineer and I'm a father of two young children. I hardly have time to squeeze in local committees that I already partake in, I know I don't have the time it would require to do a decent job as state rep. But that raises a good point about who can run. I've mulled over writing a piece on that issue.

Oh and Chaz, I have to hand it to you... your comment was perfect. You pat Jim on the back saying people should "invest the time to understand the issue" and "hear about it" exactly one post after Jim refuses to discuss the issue with me. I'm asking Jim, a state rep, to explain his goal and motivation here and he blows me off saying he doesn't have time to discuss it with me. Your timing couldn't be better!
May 20, 2008 | Registered CommenterRichard Barnes
A perfect example of liberal arrogance - isn't' a shame that the hoi polloi don't take the time to learn about the issues. Aren't they lucky to have government to make their decisions for them, the poor rubes.

I find the idea of public financing of political campaigns to be wasteful and outright offensive. Why should my hard earned dollars be taken from me and given to someone running for office? If I want to contribute to a particular candidate or party or PAC or whatnot, I will do so. If I want to contribute to an issue advocacy group, I will do so. Maybe they will lobby legislators... so what? Did you ever stop to think that each lobbyist represents a group of voters with particular interests?

Why on earth should New Hampshire implement compulsory funding of candidates through tax dollars? Campaign contributions are a form or free speech. This misnamed "clean" elections law would essentially force me to make political statements I don't agree with by taking my money and giving it to a candidate I may not support. That is a complete outrage!
May 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterConcerned Taxpayer
I'd love to see campaigns cost less but unless you intend to quiet special interest groups free speech, it make no sense. When groups like the HRC drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into the state from out-of-state funders like Tim Gill and his friends, the cost to be heard above the din of special interests will always drive up the campaign costs. All limiting the candidate spending will do is make us more vulnerable to special interests. And don't think these groups do not get pay back. Not a mention was made last season about the pro homosexual agenda of Gill and HRC, but what was the first thing on the agenda of the newly elected (and clearly purchased) majority? Don't tell me there isn't a correlation.
May 22, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdave
Dave, if as was mentioned earlier here the goal here is to give those running options of getting either private donations or public funds the end result isn't going to be fair elections or lower cost elections... it's going to be HIGHER cost elections because candidates who people don't support and who are unable to raise donations on their own are going to get funding by force of the government gun from you and I all the while the special interest groups will continue funding their choice and the "rich" will continue funding their choice. The only way around this would be to take away free speech by stopping people from having the freedom to spend their money how they wish ie. political donations.
May 23, 2008 | Registered CommenterRichard Barnes
To solve a problem there actually has to be a problem first doesnt there?
May 23, 2008 | Unregistered Commenter??

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.