Self promoting Kucinich is asking for campaign finance reform. The audacity.

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-26-07 06:36 PM
Original message

Self promoting Kucinich is asking for campaign finance reform. The audacity.

http://kucinich.us/issues/campaignfin.php

The largest roadblock toward the American Restoration is a corrupt campaign finance system that promotes plutocracy allowing laws and regulations to be stealthily auctioned to the highest bidder. Less than 1% of the U.S. population contributes 80% of the money in federal elections. The top 1% in income also received more than half the Bush tax cuts. Tax policy has become an engine for transferring wealth upward. Enron had been poised to dominate energy markets worldwide largely because it strongly influenced the White House and donated to 71 Senators and 186 House members.

Private control of campaign financing leads to private control of the government itself and schemes like the privatization of social security, which would put trillions in retirement funds of Main Street workers at the disposal of Wall Street speculators. Public control of the political process requires public financing. The restoration of our American Democracy depends upon public financing. The Supreme Court, equating money with free speech, will not restrict the power of corporate interests to dominate government. The establishment of our democracy began with the Constitution. Let us renew the Constitution by amending it, requiring public financing to redeem from the perishable fires of corporate control an imperishable government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Banning soft money is a step in the right direction, but doubling hard money limits is a giant step the other way, and one that has received much less attention. The National Voting Rights Institute challenged that change on behalf of a coalition of non-wealthy voters, candidates, and public interest organizations -- including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, and ACORN. That suit alleged, quite accurately, that doubling the hard money limits excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from the political process on the basis of their economic status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution. When only 0.11% of the voting age population contributed sums of at least $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate, doubling the limit to $2,000 provides even more power to a tiny financial elite. Those large contributions amounted to 55.5% of the candidates' individual fundraising.

Think about that. More than half the money driving the political campaigns comes from 1% of the people. And we wonder why popular positions, like universal health care or a living wage, are not enacted. Six of the 10 major party candidates for president in 2004 raised more than 75% of their money from contributions of $1,000 or more, and that includes President Bush, who raised more than all the Democrats combined. Most people cannot pay $2,000 to attend a dinner with a candidate.

It is very difficult to run for office at all if you are neither rich nor willing to accept money from corporate interests. I know. I'm trying to do it.

Banning soft money is a positive step which has oddly overshadowed in the media the bigger negative step of doubling hard money. What we need, other than media reform, is true campaign finance reform, complete public financing and the criminalization of bribery.

I ran my presidential campaign in line with these reform principles. I don't take corporate PAC money. My campaign was financed largely through small donations, mostly through the Internet -- and propelled by thousands of volunteers -- a true grassroots campaign.