Send the returning Congress a message! Sign the Fair Elections Now Act petition now!

[flpoljunkie]

Pass Fair Elections!

http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/

It's time to make our politicians accountable to us, not corporate interests and lobbyists funding campaigns. The Fair Elections Now Act would restore our government to one that is of, by, and for the people.

Watch the ad! Sign the petition below - tell Congress it's time for Fair Elections, legislation that would put voters first in the political process.

https://secure3.convio.net/change/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=629

[Rhiannon12866]

1. K&R. Done. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

2. Speaker Pelosi has pledged to allow a vote this year on the Fair Elections Now Act.

We must encourage our representatives to cosponsor and vote for The Fair Elections Now Act. There are currently 156 cosponsors of the bill in the House for H.R. 1826 and 21 cosponsors in the Senate for S.752.

We must make our voices heard. Otherwise, this legislation will surely die.

If not now, when? If not us, who? - Barack Obama

[Raine1967]

3. Hey, could I get a link? I SO want to pass this on! Thank you!

[flpoljunkie]

4. Here's three links on Speaker Pelosi's pledge.

That’s exactly what the Fair Elections Now Act would do by severing the ties between big-money contributors and members of Congress. The bill has 22 cosponsors in the Senate (not a single Republican), and 157 bipartisan cosponsors in the House. It would bar participating congressional candidates from accepting contributions larger than $100 and allow them to run honest campaigns with a blend of small donations and public matching funds. Only candidates demonstrating their viability through meeting a minimum threshold of signatures and small donations would be eligible.

A coalition is now pressing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep her pledge to vote on Fair Elections this year. She should.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37195/wall-street-not-giving-dems-good-riddance

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/wall_street_not_giving_to_dems.html?referrer=emaillink

More here...

The bill’s sponsors are boasting a pledge from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a vote on the House floor this year and are hoping that current events spur the public to clamor for action on a measure designed to limit the influence of money on politics.

On Pelosi’s commitment to holding a House vote, Edgar said: “She was on television speaking publicly about it, and we'll hold her to her word.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/07/top-line-congress-pressed-on-publicly-funded-elections.html

(Sorry! Did not realize I did not include a link in my OP yesterday!)

[BlueIdaho]

5. Done!

[Jefferson23]

6. We have to try, thanks for posting. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

10. Yes, we do!

[flpoljunkie]

14. MoveOn is also working on this: The Fight Washington Corruption Pledge

The Fight Washington Corruption Pledge

Overturn Citizens United:

Amend the Constitution to protect America from unlimited corporate spending on our elections by overturning the Supreme Court's decision giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as people.

Fair elections now:

Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, providing public financing to candidates who are supported by small donors so they can compete with corporate-backed and self-funded candidates.

Lobbyist Reform Act:

Pass legislation to end the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbyists by: prohibiting individuals from switching from corporate lobbying to government service, or vice-versa, within a 5-year period; stopping corporate lobbyists from giving gifts and providing free travel to government officials; and posting online the attendees and content of all meetings between lobbyists and government officials.

http://www.standfordemocracy.org/ratify/index.html

[jwirr]

7. Done

[Exilednight]

8. I agree with this legislation, but sadly, the SCOTUS would probably knock this down ...........

if it were to actually pass. Look at what they did McCain-Feingold.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Have you seen this intriguing research on how the world finances elections

(Ezra Klein)Research Desk summarizes: How does the world finance elections?
By Dylan Matthews

KarlES asks:

What about the rest of the world? Or more broadly, how does the rest of the world finance their campaigns?

I obviously can't cover every country's system, but the Library of Congress recently put out a report summarizing the campaign finance laws in Australia, France, Germany, Israel and the United Kingdom. These countries include a variety of different approaches, which I've tried to summarize in the following table. One thing to note is that, because all of these countries have stronger party systems than the United States, and most campaign expenditures are spent by the party itself, I have included the limits on contributions to parties where relevant. The individual limit listed for the U.S., then, is the limit on contributions to a national party, not to a candidate (that limit is $2,400); the corporate figure for the U.S. is for multimember Political Action Committee (PAC) donations to party committees, as most corporations funnel their contributions through PACs.



I added at the bottom the score Transparency International gives each country on its Corruption Perceptions Index, which is the most respected quantitative measure of political corruption. Interestingly, Australia and Germany, the two best scorers, have relatively few restrictions. The two countries both have public financing but do not cap spending or contributions, limit advertising or subsidize political ads directly. France and Israel, the two most corrupt countries featured, have individual contribution limits, ban corporate contributions, have spending ceilings and, in France's case, even ban paid political ads. As an aside, spending ceilings and bans on paid ads would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, while mandating networks to provide free airtime is questionable.

The causality could go two ways here. One could take from this that having few restrictions but public funding allows citizens and public interest groups to counter corporate spending and leads to cleaner government. This is the argument of people such as Kathleen Sullivan, a noted legal liberal who is also a strong opponent of most campaign spending restrictions. Alternately, it could just be that France and Israel have more corrupt political cultures, and that their stricter systems were adopted in response. This seems to be true in France, where scandals in the late 1980s spurred (PDF) reform of the campaign finance system. It is possible that even more corruption would occur in the absence of these restrictions, or that they could reduce corruption yet further in Germany and Australia, but leaders there have not seen the need.

The one constant is that other countries have more extensive public financing systems than the U.S., closer to what would occur under the Fair Elections Now Act.

-- Dylan Matthews is a student at Harvard and a researcher at The Washington Post.

By Dylan Matthews
July 8, 2010; 3:36 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_summarizes_how_d.html

[flpoljunkie]

12. Of course, the Republicans would appeal public financing. Corporations own them!

[Greybnk48]

11. done n/t

[flpoljunkie]

13. They're baaaaack! Time to send the message!

C-SPAN: CONGRESS RETURNS TO TACKLE FINANCIAL REGULATION, WAR BILL, JOBLESS BENEFITS

http://www.cspan.org

[flpoljunkie]

15. Keep track of House and Senate cosponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act

http://thomas.loc.gov

Type 'Fair Elections Now Act' into the Search Box.

Latest search results:

1. H.R.1826 : Fair Elections Now Act
Sponsor: Rep Larson, John B. (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (156)
Committees: House Administration; House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.

2. S.752 : Fair Elections Now Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (21)
Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

[catgirl]

16. K & R

[old mark]

17. Signed. Thanks for the opportunity. Kick. nt

[flpoljunkie]

18. Thank you for signing, old mark.

[flpoljunkie]

19. No movement! Time to email your members of Congress!