Duke City starts experiment in public financing
Posted 5/30/2007 12:50:00 AM
Today marks the start of a weekly column on this site written by Whitney Cheshire, a conservative
By Whitney Cheshire
The
But does anybody want to guess about the Mayor Marty Chávez factor? We’ve got some good
YO!
You’ve found the WMQB at our new home. We’re sure happy to be here! We’ve swept off the welcome mat, planted a geranium by the front door… and YES! The living room couch still feels the same.
So welcome!
As of this morning, 10 candidates running for the
This is the first year that
The District 8 seat is being vacated by Councilor Craig Loy and, so far, only one candidate – Trudy Jones – has announced her intention to run. But, thankfully, she’s an R who didn’t file any paperwork for the publicly funded program.
That leaves 10 candidates spread out over three districts…
Maybe we should be happy that there are only 10, since anyone who qualifies for financing gets financing, and the price tag is around $25,000 per person, to start.
So here’s our first WMQB prediction from Heath’s place – in two years, the number of candidates who seek public financing for city office will double.
At least…
And we’ll ALL be paying for it, whether we like them or not.
Anyway, to qualify, candidates have to collect about 300-350 individual contributions from voters in their district - five bucks each – and they only have one month to get it done. This requires no small amount of work. Banging on doors to get petition signatures is one thing. Asking people to go back inside and take out the wallets is an entirely different animal.
Should we call it a BEAR?
The difficulty factor is about the only good thing we can say about this new law.
But as of this morning, three candidates for District 2 are still “collecting,” and two will likely get it done – Council President Debbie O’Malley and challenger Katherine Martinez.
District 4 incumbent R Brad Winter won’t seek tax money to run his race, but his opponent, Paulette de Pascal, is turning in her qualifying contributions, a move which in itself could doom her candidacy in the heavily republican
In other words, de Pascal might need that $25,000 to explain to conservative voters why she wanted that $25,000.
District 6 apparently likes this public money thing. Six different candidates have announced their intention to go for it. Councilor Martin Heinrich will likely be vacating the seat for a congressional run, leaving the number at five.
Right now, Rey Garduño has already qualified for public funds, and Joan Griffin isn’t far behind.
Mayor might be playing in council races
So is that it??
Not really.
This year’s election is gearing up to be a BIG Mayor-Chávez-versus-THE-COUNCIL type of showdown, a classic example of the executive branch trying to stack the legislative branch in its favor.
Remember the streetcar tax stuffing that Chávez took this year? Or his lost pandas and special ornamental park?
He could use some more friendly votes on the council, no?
Chávez is rumored to be pulling the strings of certain campaigns – namely those of
Will Chávez disavow any that fail?
Probably.
As of today, de Pascal seems to be struggling the most out of the three. It could be that she hasn’t been given the help she expected, or she could be fighting an uphill battle at “the door” in what is a fairly conservative district – one that not only elected incumbent Winter on two previous occasions, but one in which most voters probably have philosophical objections to publicly financed campaigners.
And like radio show host Jim Villanucci quipping on the air that Chávez’s most-hated season of the year is “Winter,” most ABQ politicos see the District 4 match up as an opportunity for Chávez to pound away on Winter without any real expectations of wresting the seat away from him.
Recorded phone messages about this year’s budget votes – messages that skirt the edge of reality - have already been launched into Winter’s district and are a clear indication that third-party groups, organized by some MYSTERIOUS stakeholders, have already started to form and will likely be active until October.
Our point?
If de Pascal manages to get her public dollars, she’ll spend about $25,000 of OUR money to wage a battle that no one we’ve spoken to thinks she can actually win, and her candidacy will give Chávez the open door he needs to continue his public relations war against one of those councilors who bugs him so darn much.
After all, it’s not much fun to criticize a sitting official when he or she is running unopposed…
So here’s our WMQB pledge of the day – if de Pascal fails to meet the qualification hurtle this week, we will raise a glass and toast the writers of this HA-RI-BLE city law (that Chávez signed – thank you very much) for their foresight in making it QUITE DIFFICULT to get those funds, and we’ll honestly tout it as a darn fine component of any possible public financing bill that may show up in Legislature 2008.
And if de Pascal DOES get ‘er done?
The WMQB pledges to recruit republican candidates to run in those heavily democratic districts for the 2009 city elections. They’ll lose, BUT OH THE FUN WE COULD HAVE WITH $25,000 EACH!!!!
OK!
Our e-mail’s the same. Send the tips, comments, quips and COMPLAINTS to wednesdaymorningqb@comcast.net.
See you next Wednesday…
Labels: Albuquerque, Cheshire columns
5 Comments:
Thanks for raising this important issue, Whitney. It's nice to be able to carry on a public dialogue about clean elections.
It might come as no surprise that I take issue with the entire premise of this article. As an illustration of my disagreement, let me address a couple of key points-one a significant point, one a minor point.
First, the significant point. An examination of the canvass from the 2005 Albuquerque election-the election in which this system was overwhelmingly approved by voters-clearly shows that support in Council District 4 was quite strong. In fact, the lowest level of support in any consolidated precinct in that district was roughly 65%. In some cases, voters in District 4 approved public financing by almost 70%. With that kind of support, I fail to see how using the system would be a hindrance to any candidate for City Council in District 4.
Second, the minor point. Mayor Martin Chavez did not sign the public financing referendum. In fact, he registered (publicly) his opposition to the system at every turn. It was not until after the election that he announced his support for the measure.
1. I see no argument in the article as to WHY public funding is
a bad idea. The writer simply assumes it is and starts
attacking everyone who is for it.
2. As I understand it, the fundamental argument for public funding
is as follows:
a. Serious election campaigns cost a LOT of money.
b. It is much easier to raise this money in a few big donations
( split up among supposedly independent individuals ) than
via a large number of small donations.
c. This means that winning candidates owe their victory to
whatever groups provided their campaign funds. And to
continue in the game, they must reward these groups with
legislation and actions that enrich them beyond their
wildest dreams.
d. The result is that ALL politicians in BOTH parties are
complete scumbags who are busy promoting the interests of
their campaign funders over the interests of the average
citizen. Pat Lyons - are you listening?
e. The above is pretty damn non-controversial to anyone who
knows how politics works. The question is whether it should
continue ( the Republicans seem to like it best because they
typically have more money and fewer votes ), and, if not,
what can be done about it.
f. Perhaps the conservative author of the article would care to
comment points a-e above.
g. Public funding has been put forward as a way to fix this
situation by breaking the dependence of candidates on big
corporate donations, and thus freeing them to vote against
the corporations and for the citizens. The jury is out on
this, in part because it hasn't been tried much and its hard
to guess the effects. I personally am so cynical about the
whole lot of them I have to wonder if it would do any good.
I will say - if it works it is a damned cheap way to remove
control of the gov from the special corporate interests.
I am willing to listen and to experiment.
h. I also note that several candidates for national offices have
chosen to reject public funding because of the restrictions
it imposes. Public funding in ADDITION to unlimited private
corporate funding is probably a losing proposition which will
change nothing.
second commenter adds:
i. To really change the balance, public funding would have to be
mandatory for all candidates in a race, and no other funding
is allowed - including 3rd party ( supposedly independent )
support groups.
'Anonymous' has summed up the issues nicely.
Whitney suggests that Repubs will line up to get public campaign finance monies during the next election and then waste it frivolously. It seems as though she wants us to get upset by relatively small amounts of public campaign finance money while we ignore the relatively large amounts of tax dollars that will be spent to repay big campaign donors (special interests and their lobbyists.) Maybe Whitney isn't serious but nevertheless her comment supports the increasingly popular conclusion that the GOP's view of public service short changes American democracy.
If I read Al Gore correctly, each of us and every generation is responsible for building/maintaining the democracy envisioned by the founders - a democracy guided by an informed public which expects elected officials to serve its needs and not the needs of special interests. Corporate 'wealthfare' is a huge drain on public tax dollars compared to the small amounts of money spent to make our elections fair, clean and open to all.
Whitney - we're looking for you to do better next time.
-suz
Message to Paulette de'Pascal
If you can't afford a computer, or you have to file for personal bankruptcy, if you can't handle your own money, why should we trust you with our money?
And don’t blame it on someone else, Bernie Ebbers, or Ken Lay… If you didn’t know what was going on, you should have. If you can’t be fiscally responsible as an adult, then you don’t need to manage anyone else’s money. Cut out the Starbuck’s, the Manolo Blahnik’s, the Christian Louboutin’s, and the Jimmy Choo’s.
I am sorry, but money management 101 should be a pre-requisite for any public job.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Published comments have been deemed by Heath Haussamen to be in compliance with this site’s comments policy. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Heath Haussamen or this site. If you know of a person who is abusing this site’s comments system by impersonating someone else or in other ways, please report it by clicking here.