Toward Cleaner Elections Study Guide
Mary Lu Bowen
Session I — the Scandal of Campaign Spending
* In the Interfaith IMPACT paper on Campaign Reform, Richard Gilbert uses a quote from Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth, "You can tell what's informing the society by what the tallest building is. When you approach a medieval town, the cathedral is the tallest thing in the place. When you approach an eighteenth-century town, it is the political palace that's the tallest thing in the place. And when you approach a modern city, the tallest places are the office buildings, the centers of economic life."
Discuss how this quote relates to money in elections
* Word association exercise: Write individually, then call out what word/s come to their mind when participants hear the following:
elections influence scandal
campaign spending fund raising corruption
incumbents power bribery
* In small group discuss the following
- it is important for the facilitator to be clear about the participants understanding of the campaign process so first discuss the process itself clearing up misunderstandings
- then ask if they could change one thing about this process what would it be, why did they choose this, what their faith had to do with the choice
* To understand the importance of money in a campaign, discuss the following:
- Since 90% of those who spend the most money in an election get elected, it is important to look at
- Knowing you'll need to raise money again for your next campaign in two years, would you be likely to give a big contributor extra consideration such as access or allowing their concerns to sway your vote? Why or why not?
- How will you balance your response to this individual with concerns raised by other constituents?
* Read section of Wink paper entitled "The Scandal of Campaign Spending" and discuss aspects participants want to highlight. Perhaps they can add examples of outlandish examples.
* Close with examples of what the Bible says about money and power, read:
Isaiah 5:8-9
Matthew 19:23-24
How do these Biblical statements relate to influence peddling/the power of the wealthy?
Session II — The Powers That Be
* Begin with two reading assignments:
- the section of Wink's paper entitled "The Powers That Be"
- Biblical texts: Ephesians 3:10 and 6:12, Colossians 1:15-20
* After the reading assignment it is time for small group work. Distribute cards with the following questions for discussion. They need to be considered in order:
- Name four or five powers that affect your life
- How do these powers affect you positively
- How do these powers affect you negatively
- Do the "powers" act similarly even if the individuals change — i.e. a new mayor elected
* In large group discuss politics in Jesus time and compare with ours
- What was the politics that drove Jesus persecution by
- Caiaphas
- Pilate
- the mob
Still in large group, guide discussion toward the following:
- How can we relate these events to our electoral system
- What powers are common to both times
- Ask
for examples of wise use and foolish or abusive use of power in
recent
memory
* It is important for participants to have a clear understanding from the previous readings and discussion before proceeding to talk about corporate culture and institutional evil. When leader sees a common understanding, proceed with the following questions.
- In
what ways do you consider large political, economic, cultural
institutions
having spirituality
- How
do Christians give these institutional powers license to exploit,
oppress,
swindle, buy-out, undercut and destroy whatever stand in their
path
- How does our conception of institutional evil affect what we do about it
* Read section of Wink paper entitled "Redeeming the Powers"
* Discuss what is good about our system. Look for things group can affirm and want to uphold while confronting the evil. List both on separate sheets of newsprint.
Session III — Toward Cleaner Elections
* Read the section of Wink's paper "Toward Cleaner Elections"
* Discuss in small group with large group report back
- what
do participants find in Wink's practical implications that would help
them
explain to others why their congregation should become involved in
working
for cleaner elections
- if
the congregation has a food pantry, soup kitchen, homeless shelter or
in
other ways provides front line service to the needy, what practical
reasons
can participants add (if they do not provide such service, they
may
know of others who do and the problems they face)
* Have participants individually complete the following sentence As a Christian, I am concerned about cleaner elections because....". Then have them talk about it with one other person.
* Read other materials on clean elections (Appendix II)
- What
are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach described in the
accompanying
materials
- Do the weaknesses cause greater problems or net improvement
- Ask
participants if someone asked what we need elections for, how they
would
respond
- Knowing
we can't get rid of greed, avarice, envy and other deadly sins
which
seem to corrupt democracy, what can we expect to accomplish?
* Present statement of principles
Handout copy of principles. Explain to group that the principles will be used for uniting people of faith around the issue of campaign reform. Ask them to use the accompanying form to gather signatures..
* Brainstorm ways to be involved
In large group have people call out ideas. Take particular care to see that participants do not attempt to pass judgment or prioritize at this time. When ideas are no longer flowing freely, stop the process and move into system of prioritizing what group will do. An easy way is to give each participant three dots to put wherever they choose — on three different ideas or all on one. Count the dots and pursue no more than the top three as objectives.
* Draw up action plan
Using the top three priorities determined by the group, develop a plan for how your group will take action on those objectives. For each objective, determine several tasks that will need to be done to achieve that objective, when and by whom. Make these aspects of the work very clear by using a chart on newsprint or blackboard that will state the following for each objective. For example:
Objective I:
Task A:
Timeline:
Responsibility
* Close with quote from Bobby Kennedy regarding the importance of being involved.
Few of us will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events; and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of our generation. It is from numberless acts of diverse courage and belief that human history is shaped.
Each time a man stands up for an ideal
or a woman stands up for an ideal
or acts to improve the lot of others
or strikes out against injustice
they send forth a tiny ripple of hope
And crossing each other from a million centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
Appendix II: One Approach to Cleaner Elections: Clean Money Campaign Reform
(This material reprinted with the permission of Public Campaign, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group located in Washington, D.C.)
If the 1994 elections are remembered as the year the Republicans swept into power in Congress, then 1996 should go down in history as the year that special-interest money smothered Washington. In the months since the elections, the public has been treated to daily revelations about the flagrant abuse of loopholes, systematic influence-peddling, and political favors granted to special interests in Washington and state capitals across the country. It is clear that the system of laws governing campaign financing has been rendered meaningless and must be restructured. Recent scandals focus public attention on possible illegalities, but the bigger scandal is that so much of the money changing hands over the last two years has been completely legal. What President Johnson observed some 30 years ago is still true today: the system is more loophole than law.
While Congress and most state legislatures appear far from any consensus on the problem, much less a solution, there are signs that voters are far ahead of the politicians. In November 1996, voters in Maine approved a Clean Money Campaign Reform initiative, by a 56 to 44 percent margin, that does something that no state or federal legislation has ever done. It offers full public financing to candidates for state office who reject special-interest contributions and agree to campaign spending limits.
The Problem
Voters say that:
The growing recognition of these problems helps to explain public support for the Clean Money Campaign Reform (CMCR) approach, as evidenced by a number of polls. A Mellman Group survey, carried out in August 1996 for the Center for Responsive Politics, found that 68 percent of Americans support a system modeled after the Maine proposal. Gallup's October 1996 poll reported that 64 percent of voters nationwide support a system in which the "federal government provides a fixed amount of money for the election campaigns of candidates for Congress . . . and . . . all private contributions [are] prohibited." Gallup has been asking this question since the Watergate scandal, and its recent findings show the strongest level of support for a Clean Money system since that time.
The Solution
The success of the Maine (and as of November, 1998, Massachusetts and Arizona) ballot initiative(s) has given greater energy and focus to campaign finance reform efforts in more than a dozen states, including North Carolina, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington State. It was the impetus that led to the passage of a CMCR bill by the Vermont legislature in June 1997. And it has inspired federal lawmakers to introduce CMCR bills in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
CMCR is strictly voluntary, in keeping with Supreme Court rulings, but the proposal provides strong incentives for candidates to participate in the CMCR system. CMCR candidates who voluntarily reject private money and limit their spending receive a set amount of Clean Money from a publicly financed fund.
Clean Money Campaign Reform represents the most comprehensive and far-reaching approach to election finance. While no two CMCR bills are exactly the same, the overall approach embodies:
· The strictest curbs on special-interest money and influence -- CMCR bans the use of "soft money" to influence elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non-electoral "issue campaigns," provides additional funding to Clean Money candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and, most important of all, allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to participate in the CMCR system.
· The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns -- Because it eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides (to federal candidates) a substantial amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time, CMCR requires candidates to spend less on campaigns than under any other reform proposal.
· The most competitive and fair election financing -- By providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional funding for CMCR candidates if they are outspent by non-participating opponents, CMCR enables qualified individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field regardless of their economic status or access to large contributors.
· An end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger enforcement -- Clean Money Campaign Reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by limiting the period during which candidates receive their funding. Moreover, it strengthens the enforcement and investigative authority of election commissions.
How Clean Money Campaign Reform Works
The CMCR approach is designed to provide a clear alternative to the current system of raising and spending largely special-interest money to finance election campaigns. It allows qualified candidates to run for public office without compromising their independence since they won't have to ask for money from those with a vested interest in public policy. The system is completely voluntary and candidates who do not wish to participate are able to raise and spend private money for their campaigns, as they do today.
· Qualification — Candidates first must meet ballot access requirements, and then must meet the eligibility threshold for Clean Money funding. Most CMCR proposals require candidates to collect, during a pre-defined qualifying period, a prescribed number of signatures and $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters in their state or district. To cover minor costs during the qualifying period, candidates are permitted to raise a limited amount of seed money from private sources in amounts not exceeding $100 per contributor.
· Primary funding — Candidates who meet CMCR requirements and agree not to raise or spend private money during the primary and general election campaign periods receive a set amount of money from the Clean Money fund. Federal candidates also receive a prescribed amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time.
· General election funding — Candidates who win their party primaries and qualifying independent candidates who agree to the voluntary restrictions receive a set amount of general election funding from the Clean Money fund, as well as additional free and discounted TV and/or radio time.
· Non-participating candidates and independent expenditures — In order to maintain a financially level playing field, Clean Money candidates who are outspent by privately financed opponents, or targeted by independent expenditures, are entitled to a limited amount of matching funds.
Who Supports Clean Money Campaign Reform?
Who backs Clean Money funding for campaigns? In brief: a range of people cutting across political, social, and economic lines. One reflection of the breadth of support for the Clean Money approach is found in Public Campaign's National Advisory Board. More than 90 notables and dignitaries have signed on to board, as a show of their support for this far-reaching reform. They include 21 Republican and Democratic former members of Congress, six former presidential candidates, and a long list of high-profiles academics, businesspeople, religious activists, and other leaders in their fields.
The most important show of support, however, is apparent in polling data collected in a number of different states in mid-1997. A solid majority of voters -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike -- said they favored a Clean Money-type proposal.
Clean Money Campaign Reform appeals to so many people because they know they are the losers under the current system. "The American people instinctively know that when big money rules, ordinary voters are left out in the cold," says John Anderson, former congressman and presidential candidate, and a founding co-chair of Public Campaign's National Advisory Board. "Our mission is nothing less than to restore our faith in government and to strengthen our national institutions so that they may endure and be passed on in good health to our children."
Source for this material
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of special interest money in America's elections and the influence of big contributors in American politics.
To contact PUBLIC CAMPAIGN:
1320 19th Street, NW, Suite M-1
Washington,
D.C. 20036
(202) 293-0222 phone
(202) 293-0202 fax
E-mail: info@publicampaign.org
Web site: www.publicampaign.org
Ellen S. Miller, Executive Director