Taxpayers may fund city elections-C F R Thread, Day 97

BERKELEY -- The City Council took a first look this week at a proposal to use public money -- possibly from higher parking fines or hotel taxes -- to bankroll city elections.

But already opposition has arisen to the plan, which could come before voters in November and if approved make Berkeley the first city in the nation to fully fund elections with public money.

Running a mayoral or City Council campaign is costly. Mayor Tom Bates spent$230,000, including $90,000 of his own money, in 2002, while council candidates have spent $30,000 to $40,000 to win a seat, according to a report from Berkeley city leaders.

Using public money instead of individual contributions would level the playing field and give candidates a chance to explore the issues rather than pounding the pavement for contributions, supporters said.

"The system is an investment in democracy," said Sam Ferguson, co-founder of the Berkeley Fair Elections Coalition, an alliance of DemocracyMatters, CalPIRG and Common Cause. "We pay for roads, we pay for schools, we pay for swimming pools. Why not pay for elections?"

Common Cause and the Center for Governmental Studies are behind the drive to publicly finance elections, which backers say would cost residents about $6 per year.

"Elections are simply too expensive. The average citizen does not have access to running for office. We don't want our elected officials raising money ... (the) process should be open to everybody," Ferguson said.

Public financing could also attract more and better qualified candidates, and put Berkeley in the forefront of campaign finance reform, supporters said.

Arizona and Maine use the practice for state constitutional elections, but Berkeley would be the first city in the nation to fully fund elections with public money, said Amira Jessica Diamond, an official with Democracy Matters.

It also would eliminate the chance that special interest groups or developers would use their war chests to bankroll a favorite candidate, although Berkeley already limits individual campaign contributions to $250 and prohibits contributions from business entities.

"The government is spending peoples' money, and it's in everyone's interest to make sure that people who are spending aren't beholden to just the people who fund their campaigns. They should be beholden to all taxpayers," said Dan Newman, vice-chair of the Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission, which looked at the issue earlier this year.

But in a time when the city is facing a $14 million shortfall over the next two fiscal years, and could cut jobs and essential services, some council members said they won't ask taxpayers to fund city elections.

"I can't in good conscience ask the taxpayers to pay for our elections in a year when we can't afford basic services," said Councilmember Miriam Hawley.

Ferguson said his group is not asking the city to raise the money, only to support a measure on the ballot. Money could be generated from increased parking fines, utility or hotel taxes, city officials said.

Councilmember Gordon Wozniak said he supports the idea, but believes the costs to pay for campaigns were "low-balled" in this week's report to the council.

At Tuesday's City Council meeting, the council directed staff to work out the details.

Estimates call for the city to spend $500,000 in the 2006 race and $200,000 on races in 2008. It could be far more, depending on the number of candidates and other issues, city officials said. Wozniak also suggested staff members look at raising the $40,000 annual mayoral salary and the $21,000 City Council salary to attract more candidates.

One plan would require candidates to collect $5 and a signature from 700 supporters before they are given a $150,000 grant. The second proposal would be a "matching fund" scheme that would give candidates $75,000 after an initial $75,000 is raised.

First Amendment Restoration Act
Bill # H.R.3801

Original Sponsor:
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th)

Cosponsor Total: 35
(last sponsor added 03/11/2004)
2 Democrats
33 Republicans

About This Legislation:
Washington, D.C. is often referred to as "Inside the Beltway" or "Belly of the Beast." A more appropriate reference, however, is "The Twilight Zone."

In 1961, there was an episode of "The Twilight Zone" titled "The Obsolete Man." In that episode, the government finds a librarian to be obsolete and sentences him to liquidation.

Has that eerie bit of 1961 fiction become a chilling reality today?
Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court have, with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold), found political speech by average American citizens to be...obsolete. What will government mandate next...liquidation?

On February 11, 2004, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, along with several other members of The Liberty Caucus, introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act" (H.R. 3801). This legislation would restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing sections of the McCain-Feingold law that forbid issue-advocacy groups, such as The Liberty Committee, Gun Owners of America, American Conservative Union, Concerned Women of America and the National Rifle Association, to inform their members about important issues and votes relative to incumbent candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.

So during that 30-60 day period when the U.S. Congress takes a vote on abortion, immigration, gun control, United Nations, taxes, treaties, etc., we won't be able to tell you about it without committing a federal crime and risking jail time! Even a simple E-mail alert will violate the law!

McCain-Feingold, passed by Congress, signed by President Bush, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, muzzles the average American who doesn't have a high-priced lobbyist to represent his views in our nation's capital. Under the guise of "cleaning up our political process," incumbent politicians increase their job security by making it illegal for average Americans to participate.

The Liberty Committee strongly supports H.R. 3801 and encourages you to speak in favor of this critical legislation -- while you still can. Don't let the political elite make you "The Obsolete Man."
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5269186

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.

Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)

Cordially,

John / Billybob

Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.