Iowa CCI conducted a poll of political donors across the state about their attitudes towards the influence of big money in politics and public financed elections…
CCI recently conducted a survey of current political donors to gauge their support of VOICE and taking big money out of politics. We conducted this survey because we believe that political donors would also support public financing to reduce the role that money plays in campaigning and the reliance on large contributions to candidates. The survey results show that those with a financial stake in the outcome of state elections believe that the current system is broken. We contacted 2,861 donors and conducted interviews with 1,502 people who were chosen because they donated to political candidates for state office. The charts that follow show the findings of this study, which break down support for VOICE by income, amount donated and political party.
While many may expect political donors to be content with the current system, our survey reveals that donors across the political and financial spectrum are in support of a system where people matter more, and money matters less.
The poll shows Iowans are against the influence of big money in politics.
When asked, “Many people believe there is too much money in the political process. Do you agree or disagree?” nearly nine out of 10 (88 percent of) donors said they agreed. Just six percent of respondents said they did not believe there was too much money in politics.
These sentiments go across party lines as well, with 89 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, and 82 percent of Independents agreeing that there is too much money in politics.
The poll shows strong support across party lines for public financed elections and specifically the VOICE bill.
73 percent of political contributors support public financing as laid out in the VOICE Act as a way to reduce the role money is playing in our political process. (Only 20 percent were opposed.)2
This support also crosses party lines - 75 percent of Democratic donors, 70 percent of Republican donors, and 74 percent of Independent donors favor VOICE.
The support is pretty even across income levels as well…
Eighty-one percent of those polled that have a household income over $100,000 supported VOICE, and 74 percent of those with a household income less than $100,000 supported VOICE. (This leaves out a group who did not disclose their household income, which still supported VOICE at 65 percent.)
The last 2 legislative sessions, political leaders refused to allow the VOICE bill to come up for a vote. The VOICE legislation would bring voluntary clean elections to Iowa.
The VOICE bill would require candidates to get $5 donations along with their signatures to qualify. All of this money would go into a fund that would be used by candidates that have met the requirements to earn public money. The rest of the money would come from unclaimed property and a check off on your state income taxes.
Under the VOICE bill no taxpayer money would be used unless you want to mark the check off on your state income taxes. Overall, the system would cost around $10 million or less than 1/10 of 1% of the state’s annual budget.
Now is the time to get big money in politics out of our way!
Join us to tell Rep. Kevin McCarthy:
“Thebuck$ stop here!”
Election season is the reason- let’s make this an issue for the ’08 elections!
Everyday Iowans demand a VOICE in the policies that affect us.
We will not go away until our voices are heard by our elected officials!
CCI members know our strength comes from working together. Join us for this training on building power by going door to door!
Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) would reduce the influence of big money in our political system. More candidates can run for office and spend more time listening to their constituents, not big business. It’s working in other states, and it can work here too!
This fall Alaskans will have a chance to take their state back from corruption and vote on a ballot measure that would adopt clean elections in statewide races.
“This is the most important ballot initiative, the most important people’s initiative that we’ve had since statehood. If we get this right, we get our state back,” said Tim June of Alaskans for Clean Elections.
The idea is to offer candidates money from the state to finance their entire campaign.
To qualify, candidates would have to get a certain amount of $5donations and signatures from voters in their district. Once that happens candidates would have to agree to give up any private donations as well as forego out-of-pocket cash expenditures.
“Instead of making a winner determined by who has the most money, Clean Elections levels the playing field by offering candidates an equal amount of funding to whoever they’re running against,” said June.
The measure hopes to limit the power of special interest groups.
“We have always been under pressure from very large multinational corporate interests, industry interest that are constantly trying to change Legislation,” said June.
Alaska would be the eighth state in the country to provide public funding to state candidates.”
There is a similar bill in Iowa that would limit the power of special interest groups called Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections or VOICE. Like the measure in Alaska, the VOICE bill would require candidates to get $5 donations along with their signatures to qualify. All of this money would go into a fund that would be used by candidates that have met the requirements to earn public money. The rest of the money would come from unclaimed property and a check off on your state income taxes.
Under the VOICE bill no taxpayer money would be used unless you want to mark the check off on your state income taxes. Overall, the system would cost around $10 million or less than 1/10 of 1% of the state’s annual budget.
Unfortunately, the bill has been stalled in committee the last two years by Rep. Jo Oldson. Sen. Gronstal, Rep. Murphy, and Rep. McCarthy. As the fall election approaches, ask your local candidates what their opinion on VOICE is and tell them it is time for Iowans to get their state back from the special interests.
Last weekend I attended the Iowa CCI convention where John Nichols was the keynote speaker. Nichols gave a great speech that made all of the Iowans in attendance proud.
His theme was that citizenship requires action, that it is more than just voting a couple times each year. It is Iowan’s responsibility to pursue progressive goals that move the nation forward because Iowans has always been on the frontline of progressive change in the country.
Nichols outlined how Iowa has been leading the nation on the big issues ever since it became a state in 1846 and declared that it was not going to be a slave state. Wisconsin and Minnesota followed suit and this was the beginning of the end of slavery.
He then told the story of Smith Wildman Brookhart (Yes, Wildman was really his middle name.), who ran ran for the United States Senate in 1922 as a Republican with a populist message, saying…
Wall St. is a greater threat to America than any foreign enemy.
Brookhart won a close election and was seated in the Senate until he pissed off party leaders and the election was overturned. He is the only person ever to have the election results overturned after already being seated as a US Senator. Broookhart didn’t give up though. He ran in 1926 against longtime Senator Albert B. Cummins, who was the chair of the Judiciary committee. Brookhart went on to beat Cummins in the Republican primary and went on to win in the general election.
Nichols then talked about Henry Wallace and I shot this video of him talking about Henry Wallace. I used my cell phone to take the video, so the quality isn’t the best, but here it is anyway.
Nichols quoted George McGovern, who had this to say about Henry Wallace…
The only thing Henry Wallace did wrong was believe that America could be as good as Americans were.
Nichols then told how Harold Hughes spoke to end the war in Vietnam and against the strong-armed tatics being used by the Chicago police.
That led up to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Nichols said that Iowans did what only Iowans can do. We asked the tough questions at the small town cafes and in the end, showed the rest of the nation Barack Obama could win.
Nichols stressed that our duties don’t stop there. We must continue to push ahead on the issues of clean elections, local control of hog confinements, clean water, and worker’s rights. If Iowans do that then the rest of the country will follow.
Well-heeled interest groups, businesses and some government agencies spent nearly $195,000 wining and dining lawmakers and their staffers during this year’s legislative session, according to new financial disclosure forms.
Groups ranging from the Iowa State Bar Association and the Greater Des Moines Partnership to Union Pacific spent a total of $194,848 on receptions, dinners and other social events during this year’s session, according to reports filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.
Some of the groups that spent the most were the Iowa Business Council, The Principal Financial Group, Iowa Gaming Association, the Iowa Wholesale Beer Dealers Association, and Hy-Vee Inc.
Now when you look at some of the big issues that were debated by lawmakers this past session you can see why these groups were so interested. These issues include: changes to collective bargaining, expanding health care to uninsured children, if casinos would be included in the smoking ban or not, and the expansion the bottle bill.
The article goes on to tell about the dramatic influence lobbyists and PAC’s have on lawmakers and helping them get elected.
Disclosure reports for the year ending last June 30 showed that there were 610 groups who paid lobbyists a total of more than $8.5 million to influence lawmakers.
That financial influence was also shown in political action committee disclosures filed this month, with PACs having already given $872,509 to candidates this year.
I don’t think I have heard a better reason for the need for clean elections and campaign finance reform in Iowa. Yet, political leaders refuse to allow the VOICE bill to come up for a vote. The VOICE legislation would bring a voluntary clean elections to Iowa.
I’d love to sit down for a drink with Governor Culver, Sen. Gronstal, Rep. Murphy, and Rep. McCarthy and talk about the benefits of the VOICE bill, but I don’t think I have enough money to afford it.
Yesterday, members of Iowa CCI held a lobby day at the State House where they met with legislators, DNR official Wayne Gieselman, and Governor Culver. Two of the issues discusses with Culver was VOICE and local control.
Governor Culver, in his meeting with CCI members, said he would continue pushing for local control of factory farms, an issue he pledged his support of during his campaign and for which his commitment was questioned. “I commend your commitment to this important issue,” Culver stated.
Culver also said he was “more open than ever before” to supporting Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections, a system where candidates can choose to run using public funding instead of fund raising and accepting monies from powerful special interests. After seeing the impact of special interests in the legislature firsthand, Culver stated, “We have to do something.”
Popular Progressive had this post over the weekend asking if Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections or VOICE will be heard during this session.
He also had a link to an interview with Adam Mason from Iowa CCI about VOICE.
What difference would Clean Elections make in IOWA, especially in reference to the issues you work on at ICCI?
Money talks less, and people talk more. The hope is that, with voter education, voter participation will be increased and to restore faith in government, and to reaffirm that the government is by the people and for the people. With Clean Elections, legislators can focus on constituents. In reference to farm factories, local people can have control of factory farms, giving them the chance to approve or deny farm factory licenses, where now legislators are backing out of their promise to give local control over factory farms because they fear the loss of their campaign contributions from factory farm owners and corporate interest wins, grassroots people lose. With Clean Elections, law makers would not have to rely on special interest money.
I have been disappointed about the lack of discussion about VOICE and clean elections. Before the caucuses, I heard over and over again from people on both sides about the ridiculous amounts of money candidates were spending on Presidential campaigns. Now is the time to have the debate.
Bill Richardson says VOICE legislation should be a priority in 2008.
New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today signed a letter to the Dubuque County Democratic Central Committee in support of Iowa HF 805, the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) Act. The VOICE Act would allow candidates for elective office in Iowa to use public funding to finance their campaigns.
“As Governor of New Mexico, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the Untied States and, most importantly, as an American citizen, I fully endorse the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, HF 805, and I applaud the efforts of Rep. Pam Jochum and Sen. Mike Connolly in moving this legislation forward,” Governor Richardson wrote in the letter.
Richardson added…
“When I’m asked on the campaign trail how we can counteract the powerful influence of corporate special interests and get America moving again, the first thing I talk about is campaign finance reform,” he continued in the letter. “In my state of New Mexico , we are engaged in the process of turning our state elections back over to the people.
It is good to see the VOICE Act gaining some support. Hopefully this continues and it can be brought to the floor for the debate in the 2008 Legislative session.
Ed Fallon and Lynn Heuss spoke to Dennis from Cornsong earlier this month about VOICE -Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections. You can here the interview here.
