With VOICE act, emphasis is on issues
DI Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/23/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
Politics and money - words too quickly associated with one another. The money game is perceivably the driving force of politics, especially during campaigning, and how this assumption arose isn't hard to comprehend. Since the last race for Iowa's governor, campaign funding has risen by $4 million. Current presidential candidates are on their way to spending more than $1 billion. The continuous rise in campaign funding is outrageous. Campaigning is less about the issues and more about the money, but even in this seemingly dismal time there is hope. Enter the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Election Act.
VOICE is a proposal for public funding of state office campaigns. It is modeled after systems in seven other states (including Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut) and two municipalities' success over several years. As of January, more than 200 elected officials won office through the "clean election" system, according to Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C. VOICE would be a voluntary option for candidates. Either they can accept tax money or go it alone, thus dispelling fears of intrusion on First Amendment rights. By going the "clean-election" route, candidates must collect $5 donations, a signed statement of understanding, and the contributors' names and addresses. Once the appropriate number of contributors (based on level of office) is reached, the money is put into the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Election Fund. Candidates must then agree to refuse money from private individuals and interest groups. By accepting tax money, candidates remain competitive without constantly searching for funds. More importantly, the issues are emphasized, and voters gain a stronger voice early inelections.
What about those who choose to go the other route and enlist the support of wealthy interests? Rep. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, says that while unregulated groups may be a problem, there are tougher reporting requirements by the pending legislation. It is not unlikely that the perception of candidates by the public will change. The idea of money influencing politics is not well-received. It is easy to see why those who choose to go against "clean elections" could wind up with a negative image and run the chance of hurting their campaigns, a problem that even money can't solve. The newfound confidence created by "clean elections" is something that these other groups will have a problem dealing with.
Acts such as VOICE are working. Right now, money is being raised for the wrong reasons. There are more immediate concerns that deserve financial attention than political candidates' campaigns. This alternative shifts the attention to these pressing needs, while also increasing voter participation. If Iowa can adopt the proposal this year, it is sure to garner attention from presidential candidates. John Edwards has already expressed his support for "clean elections." It's time to get candidates focusing on issues on all levels rather than funding campaigns, and implementing "clean elections" in Iowa is an effective step toward a more promising government for the people.
VOICE is a proposal for public funding of state office campaigns. It is modeled after systems in seven other states (including Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut) and two municipalities' success over several years. As of January, more than 200 elected officials won office through the "clean election" system, according to Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C. VOICE would be a voluntary option for candidates. Either they can accept tax money or go it alone, thus dispelling fears of intrusion on First Amendment rights. By going the "clean-election" route, candidates must collect $5 donations, a signed statement of understanding, and the contributors' names and addresses. Once the appropriate number of contributors (based on level of office) is reached, the money is put into the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Election Fund. Candidates must then agree to refuse money from private individuals and interest groups. By accepting tax money, candidates remain competitive without constantly searching for funds. More importantly, the issues are emphasized, and voters gain a stronger voice early inelections.
What about those who choose to go the other route and enlist the support of wealthy interests? Rep. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, says that while unregulated groups may be a problem, there are tougher reporting requirements by the pending legislation. It is not unlikely that the perception of candidates by the public will change. The idea of money influencing politics is not well-received. It is easy to see why those who choose to go against "clean elections" could wind up with a negative image and run the chance of hurting their campaigns, a problem that even money can't solve. The newfound confidence created by "clean elections" is something that these other groups will have a problem dealing with.
Acts such as VOICE are working. Right now, money is being raised for the wrong reasons. There are more immediate concerns that deserve financial attention than political candidates' campaigns. This alternative shifts the attention to these pressing needs, while also increasing voter participation. If Iowa can adopt the proposal this year, it is sure to garner attention from presidential candidates. John Edwards has already expressed his support for "clean elections." It's time to get candidates focusing on issues on all levels rather than funding campaigns, and implementing "clean elections" in Iowa is an effective step toward a more promising government for the people.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Lee A.M. Olmstead
posted 4/23/07 @ 4:42 AM CST
THE VOICE ACT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD ENDING THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BEING IGNORED AND UNREPRESENTED/UNDERREPRESENTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT. (Continued…)
Post a Comment