Campaign finance really hit a nerve: Along with the public posts, I've
received a bunch of private emails. I hope those who have written privately
will post to the list because it's pretty clear there are huge issues that
need to be hashed out.
A couple themes come out in the emails I've gotten:
1. The one element I've proposed that seems to have almost universal support
is full disclosure. Taxpayers have the right to know EVERYONE who is giving
to candidates. So let's not wait until a law gets past: Let's have all
candidates for Mayor agree to release the list of all their contributors.
Lisa McDonald said she has been telling people who write her a check that
they can keep their name secret. If that's the objection, then let's start
from today. Why don't we all tell everyone from here on out that their names
will be released. I'll start: At my fundraiser tomorrow night I'll announce
that anyone who gives to my campaign should be prepared to have their names
released. So all my contributors will be prepared for our joint release.
Sharon? Lisa? Agree?
I still think we need to release the names of people who have been
giving us money up to now but if you want to take a few weeks to return
checks to anyone who wants to stay private, why don't we say we will release
the past list on, say, March 15?
I'm getting my full list ready to go and was about to release it
completely without getting an agreement from either of you. I was stopped
by a person who told me about the council member who did this about seven
years ago; She released her list and her opponant, who didn't, sent
fundraising letters to her list. I may still go ahead if you guys want to
continue to keep your contributors secret but I think it would be a great
gesture if we all released at once.
2. The most controversial part of my campaign finance reform plan had to do
with trying to stop elected officials from raising money in non election
years. The bulk of the objections came from those who said council members
needed this money to stay in touch with constituents. I haven't worked in
the council offices so I may be missing something here but: If people don't
think elected officials have the resources they need to do the job, then we
should have a full, open public debate about it. If taxpayers should fork
over more money, fair enough. Fully fund it, and tightly regulate it so the
money is spent on legit communication with constituents. Most of these
communication pieces are; some are reelection puff pieces. Let's regulate
it so we know the difference.
3. Several of the emails expressed what I thought was an appropriate outrage
at the level of spending some candidates are talking about this year. I
know early in campaigns it's sometimes necessary to have some bravado about
how much you're going to raise but, Lisa: Do you really think you need to
spend half a million dollars to convince people you should be mayor? I have
a better idea for that half a million: Give every resident of Minneapolis
one dollar and, if my math is right, you would have enough left over to rent
a decent apartment for about 20 homeless families for a year. This would
mean spending about $7 dollars or so for every vote you get....if you're
lucky. Candidates can either spend all their time talking to contributors,
or listen to everyone in the city....not just those who have money.
4. The process of reporting campaign finance information is far too
cumbersome and confusing. I called for putting all this on the Web, which
some thought would mean some high tech solution. All it means it that each
campaign would take a Word document, send it to the elections office, which
would post it as a Web page. It doesn't have to be complex; it has to be
accessible. As the posts today have illustrated, the "public" information
is not accessible to the media, let alone the general public.
5. Many people remain confused about what the law actually says...and that
shouldn't be surprising because near as I can tell, there is no one person
who will provide an authoritative opinion. When my tresurer explained the
rules as he interpreted them, I couldn't believe that no one who gave last
year had to be reported. So to make sure I called the elections office
myself. Together we reread the appropirate sections but they would neither
confirm or deny our interpretation, saying each campaign needed its own
opinion. In other words, each campaign regulates itself? I hope there is
someone reading the list who can help all those in the campaigns who
contacted me to say that their volunteer staffs are confused about what the
law really says.
6. I want to repeat the line I have used each time I've talked about this:
I am not saying anyone is corrupt, but the system is corrupting.
I also believe that no one is "bought off" just because they got a check
from someone....but I do believe the public has a right to know.
I do not agree with those who have written to say we do not need this reform
because other cities don't have it. I'm tired of people thinking that
Minneapolis can't do anything unless some other city does it first.
This is clearly a place where Minneapolis can be a leader and I hope the
other candidates for mayor will join me in setting an example.
R.T. Rybak
www.rtformayor.com
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
