NJ Today

Decontaminate Polluted Politics

New Jersey's political structure currently discourages opposition by allowing unfair advantages to candidates with great personal wealth or the support of special interests.

New Jersey experimented with public financing for legislative races through a limited "Fair & Clean Elections" test in 2005 and 2007, but that effort was scrapped this year.

Although the state has public financing for gubernatorial elections in both the primary and general elections, no Democrat emerged to mount a serious challenge to Gov. Jon Corzine, despite his vast lack of popularity and the troubled economy.

Indeed, when Corzine was a US Senator he announced that he would seek nomination for governor before the incumbent declared his intentions. Gov. Richard Codey, who became extremely popular after he ascended to the office when James McGreevey resigned, decided not to run. This is an example of economic power as brute force.

Likewise, New York City voters twice adopted laws imposing term limits, but Mayor Mike Bloomberg got City Council to permit him to seek a third term. His likely Democratic challenger is given long odds (and virtually no media attention) despite the fact that, quite literally, Bloomberg should not be in the race.

It is beyond reason to believe that Bloomberg's wealth has not influenced the situation. Monopolies and collusion undermine the prospect of benefits from Capitalism and a grossly disproportionate advantage with money has a similarly destructive impact on democracy.

Term limits have not been a problem for the presidency or New Jersey's governors. A constitutional limit on the number of consecutive terms would help keep democracy alive much as the heart maintains blood flow through the body. Unfortunately, this necessary provision is not enough.

Democracy, like Capitalism, requires competition and it is within our ability to assure such competition in an even more realistic way.

Most attempts to assure a balance have focused on restricting contributions or campaign spending. That is not what is needed. The courts have almost always ruled that such restrictions are unconstitutional obstructions to free speech.

Political competition requires a floor, not a ceiling. Instead of trying to limit what one can do, government may empower all electoral contenders to exercise their free speech in an effective manner. It is the absence of such ability that makes winning difficult.

The capacity to effectively distribute messages is dependent upon having access to the intended recipients. The government should provide free to each candidate who submits petitions a database of voters with mailing address, telephone number, email address, party affiliation, age, and record of participation in all elections held in the last ten years.

By responding to a mailed notice of upcoming elections (sample ballot) or by indicating a preference at the time of registration, or by selection at the polling places, voters themselves may be frequently afforded the opportunity to define contact preferences among direct mail, telephone, email and SMS.

The Internet was developed by government for the benefit of the public. It belongs to the people. Net neutrality should be required, but that is not enough. Each bona fide candidate for public office should be enabled to distribute information about his or her candidacy to voters without impediments created by ISP providers or the law.

If John Q. Public wants to ignore political messages, he is free to do so. AOL should not be allowed to prevent him from getting the opportunity to make that determination.

Every candidate should be allocated television and radio broadcasting time. The airwaves belong to the public and the ability for some of us to use a small piece of them is a fair price for any broadcaster to pay for what they currently get for free.

Likewise, telephone, cable and satellite systems would not exist without the consent of government agencies. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to require such companies to permit candidates to use their services without charge.

As it turns out, the most efficient organization for widespread general mail delivery is also owned by the government. The US Postal Service has a method of low cost bulk mail entry for non-profit organizations. It would not be an undue burden to allow candidates to send mail to voters for free.

Every candidate could also be given a sum of money with which to wage a campaign without resorting to begging special interests that will expect future paybacks. The government belongs to the people and it is appropriate that we use its resources to assure the selection of officials who are beholden to the public and nobody else.

The appropriation of sufficient funds to wage a campaign would be a radically reduced amount if candidates did not need to pay for broadcasting ads, postage or phone service. It would be necessary to only subsidize production, printing, and shoe leather.

Qualification for public financing should be made dependent upon the collection of small contributions from a reasonable number of voters within a jurisdiction and an agreement not to use personal funds or money from outside interests.

That is almost everything, so let’s review the changes that would help Americans preserve democracy as we have discussed them so far:

• Constitutionally-imposed term limits
• A list of voters with contact information based on recipient choices
• Freedom from ISP interference or other impediments
• Free use of public resources: airtime, postage and phone service
• Public campaign financing for those who qualify

As a final note, voters should have an opportunity to choose "none of the above" for every elected office. If we are going to empower politicians to communicate with us, we may as well inspire them to raise the level of debate.