Josh Shapiro on campaign finance reform at ADA annual meeting

Josh Shapiro spoke on campaign finance reform (and other issues) at ADA annual meeting. He made a good case that a reform agenda (transparency in gov’t, campaign finance reform) is essential to advancing an economic justice agenda—necessary but not sufficient.

Shapiro appeared optimistic that the state legislature would pass the bill sponsored by Dwight Evans to give Phila authority to craft its own campaign finance laws. He stressed the importance of getting campaign finance reform on the state level, and noted that right now it would be perfectly legal for a candidate for the state legislature to accept a million dollar check.

Shapiro wants to work towards creating uniformity in campaign finance laws on the federal, state and local level. He argued that the focus should be on rolling reporting (that is, as soon as a contribution is received it is reported) as well as on contribution limits.

From an email from Shapiro posted on Above Average Jane http://www.aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/

During our Commission deliberations, I offered a campaign finance reform proposal that would limit campaign contributions and require more disclosure and transparency by:

• Capping contributions from individuals and political action committees (PACs) to candidates at $2,300 and $5,000 respectively. This would bring state races in line with the limits set for federal races like congress.

• Allowing candidates to exceed those caps by a factor of three only when their opponent spends more than $250,000 of his or her own money.

• Requiring that candidates file campaign finance reports to disclose the amount and who they receive contributions from at least quarterly in a non-election year and 9 times in an election year. Under current state law, candidates need to only file once in a non-election year and a minimum of 5 times in an election year. This will make sure the public knows who gives what to whom, when they give it and how much is contributed.

• Mandating disclosure of all contributions greater than $50 within 24 hours of receiving the contribution during the 30 days before the primary or general election.

This common-sense, bipartisan proposal will improve our politics in Pennsylvania , clean up elections, limit the possibility and appearance of corruption in our system and level the playing field so there is more competition.

Now that the primary is over, it’s time for progressives to focus on campaign finance reform. True, we are not out of the woods yet. Fattah is appealing the Commonwealth Court decision to allow Phila. to craft its own laws and the Evans’ bill has not yet been passed. (If the Evans’ bill passes, I assume that Fattah’s lawsuit would have no merit.)

Assuming our right to determine our own campaign finance laws is established, it will be time to move to the next phase –public financing-- and also to begin the long struggle for contribution caps and public financing on the state level. When we decide who to support in state house races in 2008, this should be one of issues on which we base our decisions.

One of the main victories of progressives in last primary was the way we rallied to prevent the gutting of the campaign finance laws.

I’ve had a quite a few conversations among friends about the poor showing of progressive candidates for city council. (Maria of course was notable exception.) True enough, the council races were a disappointment, but the way progressives closed ranks to protect our fledgling campaign finance laws was a real victory for the progressive agenda. Now we need to build on this.

And back to Josh Shapiro: we need to contribute to progressives who represent suburban districts as well as to our own Philly legislators. We can’t vote for them, but we can support their campaigns

I first met Josh Shapiro at a Take Back the House fundraiser organized by Ken Weinstein a few years ago. I was impressed with Shapiro then and am even more impressed now.

I think it’s time to shift our focus to campaign finance reform and the upcoming state legislative races. The progressive community has limited resources and it not easy to decide how best to use them. The presidential race will also increasingly take up our time and money.

So any thoughts on how best to advance campaign finance reform ?

Faith in the Government's Ability to Regulate

One thought I've had recently about the relationship between campaign finance reform and economic justice is that robust campaign finance limit and disclosure rules shows that the government has the ability to regulate its own activity -- which in turn shows that government regulation and ethical laws don't bring business to a standstill.

The refrain from anti-reform figures in government, that financial limitations and excessive bureaucracy makes it impossible to do the people's business, is identical to the anti-interference argument advanced by big business. Don't make it harder for us to do business -- or we won't be able to create the jobs and provide the goods that you want. Let the market (in this case, elections) do the work to sort out the good from the bad.

But neither the free market nor free elections work that way. You need government protections to prevent businesses from exploiting or harming their customers, employees, and shareholders -- to effectively create the free market. Likewise, you need government protections to prevent the government from exploiting its voters, taxpayers, and the people (all of us) who benefit from the goods and services that government provides.

This works both ways. Legislators need campaign finance reform, partly to restore the public trust, and partly to give lawmakers more credibility when they need to pass regulations on others, whether it's businesses, other branches of government, or whatever. See? We play by the rules, too. And everyone benefits. So can you.

It's All About the Burbs, Baby.

KAREN IS RIGHT.

For the sake of city funding, for the sake of the statewide Democratic party, and for the sake of winning the White House for the Dems in 2008 - the suburban Pennsylvania state house districts and congressional seats are the most important fight, possibly in the country.

If we can win this, Democrats can retain control over the state for probably the next 50 years.

If we do that (and find a decent gubernatorial candidate FAST) we will never, never, EVER have to go begging for SEPTA money ever again or get screwed over for school funding. Democratic control of Harrisburg would be HUGE for Philadelphia.

If you don't believe me, take Terry Madonna's word for it!!!
http://www.fandm.edu/x14892.xml

In fact, the national RNC is now targeting the Philly suburbs.
And they are smart!

In fact, just two weeks ago, my favorite president of all time, President George W. Bush, decided to pick on the very state rep. whose campaign I managed last year, Rick Taylor (D-Ambler), by coming into his district and declaring a "homeland security center" in order to get Rick out of office.

Rick is the number one target for the state Rs this year too.

He's also one of the kindest, most committed public servants I know, a graduate of Senator Paul Wellstone's office, and giving him just 50 bucks today will help hold off the Republican onslaught - or 100 bucks - or whatever.

http://www.taylorforpa.com/contribute.php

I don't quite think that the national GOP has figured out yet that we in Pennsylvania really don't like them. They just are not good people. They keep sending very young people to die in their stupid wars. They don't want women to have power. They make life miserable for gay people. They build lots of prisons to put black people in. They think social services are a bad idea. They are big fat jerks.

Thanks to Mary Isenhower and the Scranton mafia and yes - our very own Ray and Jen and P4C, we kicked out their #1 targeted Senate candidate last year.

Now wasn't that fun!

i know that was off topic.

That really had nothing to do with campaign finance reform in Harrisburg.

I write this because I feel that the Dems here (philly and burbs) need to start thinking regionally. It would change the state forever.

My take?

Make sure Ruth Damsker finishes third, ahead of Jim Matthews, in the November election for Montco Commission, and the grand plan you mention may trickle down directly from that result.

I hope to put together something more substantial on this important, winnable race soon.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content