Govt. Reform

Building a Multi-ethnic Movement for Campaign Finance Reform as a Civil Rights Issue

Despite press reports to the contrary, the most anticipated presidential election in a generation was not without its flaws. 

• Some people waited as long as nine and ten hours to vote;
• Inadequate voting systems were pervasive in mostly minority and low-income districts;
• Elderly African-American voters were intimidated by visits from law enforcement officers;
• A partisan and controversial Secretary of State may have prematurely declared a winner before all the votes were counted; and
• Thousands of formerly incarcerated people who paid their debt to society were still disenfranchised.

The 2004 presidential election demonstrated a perverse and widespread system of voter suppression targeting the poor and communities of color.

However, the poor and communities of color are most disadvantaged by the dependence of money in electoral politics.  The “mothers milk of politics” has a corrupting influence on our nation’s democracy, determining which candidates and what issues go before the people. 

President Bush and Senator Kerry raised over $800 million during the 2004 presidential election campaign.  When you add the total spent to elect representatives to the House and Senate, the total raised is over $2 billion.  While the number of small contributions increased and more people contributed than ever before, the fact remains that the focus on fundraising corrupts the process and perpetuates unequal access.  The net effect is a modern-day poll tax that prices out low-income people and marginalizes many minority voters.

New Campaign Finance Law  

Through the Claiming Our Democracy Program, Greenlining helped pave the way for passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), formerly McCain-Feingold.  The law did not set out to rid money from the system, but to define “federal election activity” encompassing a ban on unlimited soft money contributions and regulations on electioneering communications.  The intent was to regulate the unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties from corporations, unions and individuals used to finance television advertisements rather than increase civic engagement.

Greenlining was most concerned with a provision of BCRA known as the Levin Amendment, it allowed state and local parties to raise soft money up to $10,000 per donor strictly for party building activities such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) activities.  Greenlining’s study of Levin fundraising activity in California revealed that the two major state parties were not enthused to raise limited soft money for party building activities.  Greenlining will continue to monitor the effects of BCRA on minority voter participation, and the ability of state political parties to more fully engage low-income and minority communities in the democratic process.

California’s Initiative Process is Unfavorable to Minorities and Low-Income Communities

California’s initiative process is captive to special interests and wealthy individuals.  A million dollars is all it takes to qualify an initiative for the ballot.  Some initiatives have been detrimental to the interests, well-being and aspirations of California’s 20 million minorities.  Well-financed, ultra-conservative interests groups use direct democracy to foster resentment of immigrants and assault diversity.  The use of ballot initiatives has proliferated as the legislature has become more ethnically diverse.  Rather than supplement the legislature, the initiative process has become a politically expedient way to enact policies that are either politically infeasible in the legislature or more popular with the current predominately white electorate.    

Greenlining is dedicated to reforms that would bring California’s initiative process back in-line with Hiram Johnson’s original intent, and make it more favorable to minority and low-income interests.  These reforms might include:

1. Limiting the number of initiatives to six (6) per election cycle.
2. Requiring an initiative to pass with at least a 60% majority.
3. Promote volunteer signature gathering by requiring that any initiative based on paid signatures shall require 50% more signatures to qualify.
4. Limit the influence of money by setting a contribution limit of $500 by any individual or groups in favor or opposed to an initiative.  (Recent Supreme Court rulings limiting party contributions to ballot initiatives provide some hope.)
5. Cut through reliance on misleading television ads by creating a non-partisan board on ballot initiatives that will provide specific and accurate information to the public on the impact of an initiative.

We look forward to working with various reform groups, community leaders and opinion-leaders to reform California’s initiative process.

Public Financing of Elections

Greenlining continues to favor a system of full public financing of elections in the state of California.  Elections are a public good worthy of public funding.  The continued private financing of public office will result in special favors for wealthy special interests.  Only a voluntary system of full public funding similar to those in Maine and Arizona provide a real and substantive model for campaign finance reform.  In those states, candidates for statewide office raise $5 contributions to qualify for public grants to mount a competitive campaign.  In exchange, they agree to limit their spending and take only the public money, not corporate or special interest money.  The results are candidates that spend time with voters, not dialing for dollars or planning fundraisers.  Imagine such a system in California where lobbyists, corporations and special interests hold considerable sway.        

The Claiming Our Democracy program is laying the foundation for this bold reform to take hold in California.  We will convene forums and workshops around the state.  Educate coalition members and other constituency groups about the extraordinary benefits and minor costs of responsive government.  We can have a democratic process predicated on equality, justice and accountability to all citizens regardless of wealth and income.