Nomi Prins

Choice: Democracy and Finance Reform

To me, every single component of strengthening our democracy relates to having choices. First, there's voting, which gives us the opportunity to elect those we let govern us. We did a great job of that a couple weeks ago. We chose to fire officials that weren't doing it for us. That was uplifting and step one.

Step two is choosing which issues we want to focus on and which laws we want to change. That's a bit more complicated because they run the gamut from windfall taxes on oil and gas companies, to personal bankruptcy reform, to funding education, to fixing Medicare Prescription D and the health care system in general. I'll get into those issues over the week, but before that, there's another choice related matter - who gets to run for office in the first place. On that matter, little has changed. It's still nearly impossible to run for office without a serious amount of cash. And even harder to win.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in approximately 93 percent of House races and 67 percent of Senate ones, the candidate with the deepest pockets won. These were slightly better pay-to-play odds than in the 2004 election, but this was also a year, where voters chose to vote out the most corrupt big-spenders. It still costs about $1 million bucks to run for the House and $8 million for the Senate. In all, over $1.2 billion dollars were spent to run for Congress. That's like three and a half Iraq wars.

It concerns me that Hillary spent $46 million on her race, especially when no one in New York even remembers who ran against her. It seems so, well, decadent. Unfortunately, the people best at raising money are least likely to allow anyone else in the game. In a November 19th, New York Times article Democrats Split on How Far to go with Ethics Law by David Kirkpatrick, Diane Feinstein said "you use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but - I was going to use the term "nut" - may be mentally incompetent." Less wealthy equals less intelligent? Come on, Diane.

Even leaving aside the fact that those who fund Congress (lobbyists, corporations, etc.) thwart our choices by bogarding legislation initiatives, not capping campaign funding amounts or providing substantial media public access to candidates who don't have a few mil at their disposal, simply kills choice. So, this year, let's not merely tinker around the edges of reform. Let's go 'all in'; invite more people to the table by establishing more inclusive opening limits and rules. Yes, it's radical. But, choice is the most rewarding choice of all.

Nomi Prins: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:04 PM, Nov 20, 2006 in Governmental Reform
Permalink | Email to Friend