Texas political candidates should jump on the clean election (public election) train. “Dirty” money, or interest and PAC funding, cause pressure for political leaders to pass legislature for bully groups. Previous practices of these tactics have occupied the attention of political leaders from the public. Instead, political leaders are focused on whatever interest group they are “indebted” to. Examples of these unrepresented citizens are listed. Some of the Texas Supreme Court Justices who are running for office have been campaigning with sagging pockets from large contributions stemming from lawyers and litigants. Groups or individual contributions to Supreme Court Justice’s campaigns seem to allow easier access to the Supreme Court. A study by the Texans for Public Justice states that over half of the donations for Justice’s campaigns are from these contributors. I say we pull the rug from under favoritism for large donors and support a public funded campaign system.
Public funded campaign systems have been tested by some states that have successfully switched to them; these states include Maine, Arizona, and recently Connecticut. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger passed the Fair Elections Act, which would allow public funding for the Secretary of State. There are various ways to achieve public funding. One way that is being practiced is each voting-citizen donating a maximum of say $5 towards their candidate and the candidates who do not pull a certain number of votes or are underfunded are dropped out of the race. If the candidate accepts no other source of donation, he could be rewarded with a grant from the government. This could be funded through say a raise on criminal fines. This makes candidates accountable to the public and not to special groups like they should be. It also could save taxpayer dollars in the long run from inappropriate spending on issues not affecting a majority of the population. It allows candidates to spend more time focusing on national priorities instead of on campaign funding. It gives every person, rich or poor, a shot at changing problems in their life and it also causes more political involvement. Not only has this idea been favored by the public citizen, but the candidates that used public funding seem to favor it too. If the federal campaigns have limits and other states are having a lot of success, why not give it a try?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I completely agree with you that Texas should put some limits on the campaign contributors in order to maintain the election clean. It is obvious that Texas government is in hands of the well-funded special interest groups and businessmen. Private interests play a big role in the policy process by controlling legislators (through lobbying and campaign contributions) and executive agencies (through influence on gubernatorial appointments and through the revolving door). As a result, Texas government lost it equal and fair public representation function. I also agree with you that we should introduce the Public funded campaign systems and regulate a maximum on each donation. In addition, the government may operate a public media to inform Texas residents about the important information such as who are the office candidates, what kinds of plans they have, and what they support or oppose. Hence, those new nominees could be familiar with constituents as same as the incumbents, so that everyone will have an equal chance to get election. Besides, the office runners could focus on their jobs without paying attention on campaign funding as well. Moreover, the greatest advantage is that the government will not be bias and controlled by some special groups, and everyone no matter their status will have a voice in politics.
Post a Comment