Issues, Florida Chapter

Clean Money - Clean Elections: Campaign Finance Reform

Environmental candidates are subject to more special interest Big Money than nearly any other issue candidates, except for select health care-related electoral contests. Taking special interest money out of candidates’ war chests would unquestionably benefit pro-environmental candidates and indirectly environmental programs.

Clean Money-Campaign Finance Reform has been chosen by the Florida Executive Committee as one of the Legislative Priorities either primary or secondary over the last three sessions. It was also unanimously chosen a Sierra Chapter Priority four years ago at the Conservation Committee meeting at Pine Lakes. The Florida Chapter Goal (1) for Chapter Issue Chairs and Conservation Committee calls for "Effective and timely action on Florida Conservation issues." Clean Money Campaign Finance Reform (CM - CFR) must be seen as the most effective and timely way that conservation of the resources of the state of Florida can be accomplished. For the 2006 legislative session, however, we anticipate advocacy and expose- type activity in the legislature itself, while the recent elections and their record attack ads and campaign finance war chests have plowed important public awareness and disgust again this year; the committee will continue to push the principles of CMCR publicly despite the reaction and non-action by most legislators.

Threats

We repeatedly see legislators elected who are worse on the environment than the legislators they replace. Good, knowledgeable conservationists stand little chance of being elected to office unless they are themselves wealthy enough to fund their own campaign. And since the environment doesn't pay its protector the way mining, transportation, over-development, etc. do, they don't run. In 2005, the prospects look worse, since legislators owe unprecedented payback to special interests who financed their campaigns, especially developers and polluters.

The House race I lost in 1998 had the winner, Rep. Argenziano, raising over $142,000.00 to my $21,000.00. And in addition, Argenziano received "soft money" expenses from her party in the form of polling, campaign manager plus and staff that by law never has to show up in her contribution report. Had there been public funding available for my campaign, I could have included direct mail in the campaign. (One direct mail piece to all voting households in my District costs $14,000.00. Argenziano's party mailed out 7 for her.)

In 1999, for the first time, we had a piece of legislation filed that will speak to leveling the campaign playing field, and putting the reins on "soft money." In 2000, the entire Florida Clean Elections consensus legislation was filed. Sierra's Florida questionnaire has identified more than one hundred candidates who have pledged or promised to support Clean Money reforms if elected. We need to continue supporting this effort in an effective manner so that legislators will know we are serious in protecting the environment by making the election process available to qualified candidates. Filing of a bill and the subsequent public discussion of the principles of Clean Money reform are the first steps in educating legislators, the press and the public of the need for CM-CFR. We need to help lead that education by being there, taking it as a priority issue and carrying it through. We may not win in the immediate future, but the educational process will begin. (Sierra Club, inspired by Florida Chapter's leadership, delivered on its official support of CMCR by contributing $200,000 to the initiatives for Clean Money Reform in Missouri and Oregon general elections that next fall.)

We also now see the implementation of the recent McCain-Feingold "Soft Money" reforms, which have shown as we predicted how "Hard Money" is several times greater in its direct and indirect influence in our elections for special private money interests. In Florida, the 2004 elections were financed (and redistricted) such that NO INCUMBENT was defeated—every Florida incumbent in Congress and in the state House and Senate who ran, WON. Nationally, the recent election cost more than $4 Billion.

We will never stop urban sprawl, weakening of Growth Management laws, toxic pollution, selling of our natural resources unless we elect lawmakers WHO HAVE NOT BEEN BOUGHT!

Our friends at Public Campaign released a book in 2004 titled, "Is that a Politician in your Pocket? Washington DC on $2 Million a Day." The successful Clean Money electoral systems in Maine and Arizona attracted 80% and 50% respectively of all legislative candidates chose to run "Clean." In North Carolina 12 of 16 candidates for state Supreme Court and Appellate Court ran with public funds in the new Clean Money system there. Participation cut across political lines, with 87% of the Democrats and 73% of the Republicans in Maine ran as Clean Money candidates. In Arizona, the participation was 65% and 51% respectively. As a result of the November elections, now a whopping 83% of the state senate and 77% of the house in Maine are made up of legislators who ran clean.

Goals

End the "Soft money" loopholes in Florida's campaign financing system and expand spending limits to provide full public funding for statewide and legislative candidates; Support and implement the Clean Money Principles: Reduce and limit campaign spending; Stop the flow of special interest money; Give regular people a fair shot at winning office; Stop the endless money chase; Make "one person, one vote" a realistic principle in our democracy.