A citizens’ group is promoting a ballot initiative that would create publicly financed elections in Colorado. At 6,000 words, it’s much longer than a constitutional amendment ought to be. And a reasonable person has to wonder, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has said anyone may spend as much as he or she wishes on election campaigns, whether any candidate would opt for the decidedly more frugal restrictions of public financing.
But James Hoffmeister and allies are undeterred. They’ve jumped through the first several hoops of getting on the ballot, and now they’re going after the 120,000 to 150,000 petition signatures they need by mid- July.
The first several dozen of the 6,015 words in their proposed Article XXX (that’s really its number; it’s not X-rated) explain why they think it’s necessary.
Ordinary citizens, they say, find it hard to scrape up enough cash to run for office. The candidate who has more money wins 90 percent of the time. Public funding, they say, would make for more competitive races, reduce the time candidates spend raising money and increase the time they have available to see to constituent concerns.
To qualify, candidates would have to first raise a minimum number of $5 contributions. The qualifying “seed money” number varies according to the number of people the candidate hopes to represent, statewide or in a legislative district. The process will be administered, and records kept, by an appointed bipartisan commission whose funding will include annual $5 to $10 assessments on state income tax returns.
Once a candidate qualifies, he or she can’t accept any more private contributions beyond the seed money. Losing candidates have to return unspent funds, and they can’t back out of the funding deal once they’ve agreed to it. Candidates who take public money will have to participate in at least one debate, too.
A participating candidate will get public funding equal to the average spent by the winning candidate in each of the two previous elections for the same office. In other words, if it cost $40,000 to win a legislative seat in 2008, and $50,000 this year, the participating 2012 candidate will get $45,000.
One argument against public funding is that candidates will spend it on hateful blather, and is that where you want your tax dollars to go? Even the primaries are toxic, because that’s when candidates woo their party’s fringes.
Democrats accuse one another of not being true to what they now call “progressive” principles — which were formerly known as “liberal” ideals, but that fell out of favor. Republicans accuse one another of being RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). It would be nice to see the re-emergence of some sturdy TREEs (Traditional Republicans, Extremists Excluded), but things may be too far gone for that.
Nowhere in all its many words does the amendment say anything about having to conduct a decent campaign.
Hoffmeister said its backers think civility “clearly” is an issue that needs to be addressed, but couldn’t find a way to do it in this initiative. He also is part of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, which a couple of elections ago asked candidates to sign a pledge to behave. But without any way to enforce it, “It wasn’t effective.”
The alliance quit pushing the pledge idea. But it’s still thinking about bringing people together to talk about how differences of opinion have been reduced to “vitriolic and inciting almost to violence type statements.”
Most of the group thinks the trick is to teach people how to really listen. Hoffmeister says they also need to learn how to talk — reasonably and politely.
None of this will work, though, if the only people involved already are committed to being agreeable. At some point, Hoffmeister said, “we’ve got to invite people with whom we disagree.”
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com), retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post, is also a political analyst for 9News.
