Thanks for continuing to address the subject of campaign finance reform on your blog, Mario. I think a good, constructive dialog on this issue is long overdue. I clearly disagree with your analysis, and I believe some of the points you make about the proposed system are misleading.

First, let me clarify the issue of paying for the system. If the referendum passes, the Council will appropriate 1/10 of 1% of the general fund on an annual basis. This earmarked expenditure will, of course, be part of the annual budget approved by the Council. If the City Clerk and City Attorney (the two offices charged with overseeing the fund) wish to request an increase of this annual appropriation, the Council must pass this request by a majority vote in the form if a spending increase. The spending increase must then be signed by the mayor before it goes into effect. This is the same system of checks that exists for any other earmarked public expenditure.

So, that's 1/10 of 1% each year, or about $1 per ABQ resident. That's hardly a burden to taxpayers. The fund builds up over time so that every four years (mayoral race) it will have sufficient funding for those candidates who qualify for the system.

Furthermore, when candidates qualify for the system, they are done raising money. They can spend time talking with voters about the issues, instead of being locked in a small room for multiple hours each day dialing for dollars.

Second, Common Cause is a nonpartisan organization. We've worked with Republicans and Democrats, and we've held Republicans and Democrats accountable for over 35 years. Never in that time have we endorsed a candidate. With respect to the "candidates from diverse backgrounds" question, you needn't take our word for it. Just simply visit http://www.azclean.org/ and http:// www.mainecleanelections.o...ysisresults.pdf for data from Arizona and Maine. This is a system that is working for Republicans and Democrats in those states. In fact, 10 out of 11 statewide offices in Arizona are occupied by people who were clean elections candidates.

Finally, this is a system that would allow candidates to spend less time raising money. Again, I encourage you to investigate how the system is performing in Maine and Arizona. Candidates in those states hold barbeques, coffee meetings, and go door-to-door to gather qualifying contributions. This engages voters in the process who may not otherwise hear from a candidate. It also forces candidates to run a good, grassroots campaign.

Mario, the system proposed by the Open and Ethical Elections Code is the only constitutionally permissible way we can even begin to attempt to limit campaign spending in Albuquerque. The system has a proven track record in multiple locations around the country. The Open and Ethical Elections code would shift the emphasis away from fundraising and campaigning from behind a television camera to voter contact and voter e
Matt Brix | Homepage | 09.16.05 - 10:28 am | #

To conclude from the previous post, this referendum needs to pass. Email the previous response to your friends and colleagues, and ask them to email it to theirs.
Matt Brix | Homepage | 09.16.05 - 11:16 am | #