POLITICS

CLEAN ELECTIONS PROVE TOO POPULAR FOR BUDGET

PAUL CARRIER, PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, ME - Using tax dollars to run
political campaigns is so popular in the governor's race this year that
the Clean Election Fund, which provides the money, will run dry if most
of the candidates who want to use it qualify to do so. Seven of the 12
announced candidates for governor hope to get optional public financing.
The other five, including Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, plan to run the
old-fashioned way - by raising money privately from contributors.

The Clean Election Fund should have almost $10 million on hand through
June 30, 2007. That may be enough to cover all of the program's costs,
including hundreds of publicly funded legislative races this year, if
there are only three tax-funded gubernatorial candidates. Officials
estimate three candidates would cost the state $4.9 million, but add a
fourth at a projected cost of $1.4 million and that would break the
bank.

The fact that so many people are vying for the Blaine House this year is
not unusual. Thirteen candidates had registered with the state
Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, which
administers the Clean Election Fund, by this point in the election cycle
four years ago. By the election that November, the field had shrunk to
four - Baldacci, one Republican, one Green Independent and one
independent.

What is unusual this time around is the number of candidates who want
public financing. In 2002, only two of the 13 declared candidates
received tax dollars. This year, more than half of the candidates hope
to go that route.

As a result, the ethics commission will have to decide soon whether to
gamble that the field of publicly funded candidates will shrink enough
for the state to cover the budgeted costs, or err on the side of caution
by seeking extra cash now. Experts say there is more interest in public
financing now than when it was first made available in 2002 because the
novel idea didn't catch on right away. . .

"It's very beneficial," in part because it allows candidates to run
without being beholden to private contributors, said Alex Hammer, an
independent candidate. As independent David Jones put it: "It gives me
more time to focus on the issues" rather than fundraising. . .

To get money from the Clean Election Fund, each candidate also must
collect 2,500 $5 "qualifying contributions," or $12,500, from registered
voters. The contributions, which go to the Clean Election Fund, must be
by check or money order, no cash.

Candidates in the process of collecting that money say it is a
time-consuming and labor-intensive process that requires a small army of
volunteers. Independents have a June 2 deadline to submit their
contributions, but party candidates must do so by April 18 if they want
funding before the primary.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060130governor.shtml


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

CONGRESS: REFORM SCHOOL DROPOUTS

JAMES RIDGEWAY, VILLAGE VOICE - The proposals for the reform of lobbying
announced last week by both parties are window dressing for this year's
midterm elections. The measures have nothing to do with reform and
should have the overall effect of making people only more angry at the
corruption on Capitol Hill. Not one of the proposals deals with the
central issue, the large amounts of money lobbyists and their clients
pour into members' campaign funds. "Neither [Democrats nor Republicans]
would prohibit lobbyists from making campaign contributions, arranging
fundraisers, bundling contributions from clients, or serving on members'
fundraising committees," Joan Claybrook, president of the nonprofit
Public Citizen, said last week. "Second, neither proposes an independent
ethics watchdog to audit disclosure reports from lawmakers, staff, and
lobbyists and to conduct independent investigations of alleged
violations."

Nor does either party want to change the "earmarks" process whereby the
Appropriations Committee chair allows members to stick their own special
projects into an already voted-on piece of legislation. . .

The only serious recourse for reform would be a constitutional amendment
banning private money from elections and making them completely publicly
financed. Needless to say, everybody in Congress and on K Street dreads
that idea.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0604,mondo1,71896,6.html