“In the sound bite culture that we have maybe it’s not possible to do this, but if it isn’t democracy is at risk,” 

Any nonscientific poll among honest Californians might reveal near consensus that education (primary, secondary, and higher ed), infrastructure improvements, healthcare, prison overcrowding, and the state’s budgeting system are issues needed to be addressed yesterday.

We bemoan the annual budget stalemates, maintain low opinions of the Legislature, we have opted for reactionary ballot initiatives portrayed as political Nirvana, but in reality was nothing more than fool’s gold. This has led to apathy becoming the largest organized political party in the state.

But legislation authored by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) is methodically making its way through the Legislature with the traditional measured pace reserved for those rare bills that truly represent a change of direction.

AB 583, also known as the “clean elections” offers public campaign financing based on the model adopted by Arizona, calling for a voluntary public financing system that requires candidates to:

·      Collect a set of small number contributions

·      Agree to voluntary spending limits

·      Not accept campaign contributions from any private source

·      Not contribute to their own campaign from their own pockets

By complying with these requirements, candidates would receive full public funding for their primary and general elections.

After researching the models in Arizona and Maine, Hancock discovered, “both candidates and citizens found it was working very well for them,” she said. 

Once thought to be the pipe dream of a small sect of good government liberals, AB583 now has 23 co-authors in the Assembly and Senate willing to align their name to Hancock’s legislation.

What Hancock is realizing even legislators who raise lots of money are supportive of AB 583 because they understand what an obstacle campaign contributions from big contributors can be.

Moreover, big contributors implicitly or explicitly bring the shadow of fear with their contributions.  Fear, that an interest group will run an independent expenditure campaign against an elected official or contribute to one’s opponent because of a vote.  Fear driven voting prohibits a legislator from voting his or her conscience.

As a stand-alone issue, pubic campaign financing is not sexy.  It does not stir the emotional juices like “Three Strikes,” immigration, affirmative action, or term limits. But it is the key that unlocks the possibility for change with the issues Californians do hold dear.

The bipartisan influence of money can work against the interests of the people, which fuels voter apathy.

As I previously reported, MAPLight.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on the connection between money and politics, released a report late last year, revealing the fate of seven health care bills and the relationship between how votes were cast and who contributed to the elected official.

In 2006, AB977, which called for health plan regulation, died in the Senate Business, Finance, and Insurance Committee -- 2 votes “Yes,” 4 votes “No,” 5 not voting. Contributions broke down as follows: Supporters of those voting “Yes” contributed on average $3,750 per legislator, those voting “No” or failing to vote received on average $13,951 per legislator.

The most compelling reason for supporting a voluntary public campaign finance system is to realize a decline in public apathy.

“People are cynical,” Hancock says. Adding, “64% answered yes on the Public Policy Institute poll that Sacramento was run for a few big interest, not for people like me.”  Clean elections represent the best path for changing this attitude.

Since its inception in 2000, Arizona has seen an upsurge in the participation of women and people of color seeking elected office. It is unlikely that Arizona’s current two-term Governor, Janet Napolitano could have won without a clean elections system.  In short, clean elections enhance the ability of people like “me” to serve in the Legislature.

Hancock is prepared for the long haul; she also is a pragmatist.  “In the sound bite culture that we have maybe it’s not possible to do this, but if it isn’t democracy is at risk,” she said.

AB 583 is scheduled for a hearing June 18 in the Senate Elections Committee.  I hope members of the Apathetic Party put that date on their calendar.