The Kruger case is in fact a case where current laws are violated.  No matter what reforms are passed, therefore, such cases of violating laws just won’t go away.  However, we need to ask the question of why do so many of our public officials get caught up in maters of money tied to their campaigns.  It stands to reason that full public funding of elections that is owned by the people themselves (not by influential donors) will go a long way to reduce the incentive to violate the law.

Now, following the Kruger case, politicians who had received any money from him are in the process of distancing themselves from this unfolding mess.  Unfortunately, the reputation of even the hard-working and well-intentioned politicians who were associated with him will take a beating.

So New Yorkers, please wake up.  Call your assembly and senate members and urge them to support Governor Cuomo’s call for voter-owned elections that are fully funded by public funds.  We can’t afford not to do this.

In response to this news, Karen Scharff, Executive Director of Citizen Action of New York, issued this statement:

If the news of Senator Kruger’s alleged corruption doesn’t make our elected officials in Albany race to pass voter owned elections with public financing, then their inaction makes them as guilty as Senator Kruger and his corrupt pals are accused of being.

In 2005, Connecticut legislators passed a voter owned elections system after their Governor was sent to jail on campaign finance corruption charges. New York’s voters shouldn’t have to endure one more scandal before we take Connecticut’s lead and once and for all root out the motivation for politicians to sell our democracy. New Yorkers aren’t fooled – they are well aware that large campaign donations of big money donors, corporate fat cats, and their lobbyists have direct influence on the actions of elected officials and state government.

In his first State of the State address, Governor Cuomo said New York needs a publicly-financed voter owned elections system. In a Siena poll the following week, 70% of the public agreed. The Assembly has long supported it. We can’t wait for another news story like yesterday’s story about Senator Kruger. It’s time for Governor Cuomo and the State legislature to act so that we no longer have to watch New York’s taxpayers deprived of honest services from their elected officials.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal has an article about the letter sent by 23 big names in New York State politics asking the Governor to make good on his promise to reform New York’s political process by putting voters back in charge of elections.

The letter noted the importance of real reform in Albany. If Governor Cuomo and the people of New York want REAL change, New York must have a electoral system that puts voters first and lessens the influence of special interests and their lobbyists – a system that will, “reduce candidates’ dependence on special interest donors and lobbyists’ political contributions.”

We have seen big money’s massive influence in New York elections. Voter owned elections will allows us to reclaim our political process and empower small donors and minimize the influence of big money corporate interests.

Here is the letter:

A strong ethics package would be a start, but not nearly enough. New York also needs a fair campaign financing system, including public financing — the only way to end the culture of pay to play. It needs an independent redistricting commission to finally end gerrymandering and make elections more competitive.

They’re right. The push for ethics reform has gotten a lot of attention in the past year. But disclosures and transparency simply aren’t enough. We need to attack the systemic problem – the system that requires candidates for public office to raise massive sums of private money.

So, take a minute right now and send a message to your Assemblymember. Tell them that you and a lot of your fellow New Yorkers want them to be accountable to you again – instead of their big money campaign donors. Tell them to pass voter-owned elections.

There’s little hope of changing how the state spends taxpayers’ money until we change how politicians get theirs.

Right now, it’s people and groups with extroardinary amounts of money that have our government’s ear.  The system has become a vicious cycle of fundraising and lobbyists.  What we at Citizen Action of New York and the other couple dozen good government groups are working for is the shift towards politicians spending most of their time listening to grassroots voices.  The $5 dollar campaign donations, the school bake sales, and the editoral or the letter to the editor in local newspapers can become the structural legitimacy for truly representative elections and legislators.  Ethics and government reform are helpful remedies towards a transparent government, a government where the people and the politicans don’t start fundraising as far out as 2 years before an election–but to stop the backtracking, the stalling, the false compromises, and such, we need voter-owned publicly financed elections.

So take a few mintues and read The Buffalo News’ editorial, then use the tools on this website to help us pass this crucial reform.

In Sweden and Iceland, for instance, there is public funding of elections through state contributions to the political parties. In truth, political parties are run on government funding. This is done in an effort to curtail the ability of those with economic power to exercise control over the system, making parties financially independent from business interests. It is also done in order to make it possible for new parties to win ground in a competitive electoral field and to ensure that political aspirations are not only for those with the ability to fund a lengthy campaign. This financial support is coupled with tight restrictions on contributions from individual and companies in order to minimize their influence.

Lets take an example:

In Sweden, government funding for political parties is two-fold. On one hand there is “Party Support” where each political party receives 1 unit of support, which is 333,300 Sek or about $50,000 per seat in parliament. The number of seats is calculated with a staggering ratio between the influence of the party’s popular support in the 2 most recent elections. In addition, parties that did not win seats in the 2 previous elections receive 1 unit of funding per full tenth of a percent over 2.5% of popular support that they received up to a set maximum.

In addition to “Party Support,” political parties in Sweden also receive “Secretariat Support,” which is essentially funding for the bureaucratic day to day work done by a political party. Secretariat Support provides each party that had the support of at least 4% popular support in the last election 1 unit of basic support for each year covered by the election with parties that garnered less popular support receiving proportionally less support. 1 unit in this case is 5.8 million Swedish Krona, or 886 thousand dollars.

The reverse side of government funding of elections are restrictions on contributions from individual and companies. While day to day operations of political parties are in most part covered by the funding they receive from the government, election campaigns with the necessary advertisements and organizational work are very expensive fares. As such, a way for parties to procure additional funding is necessary. When outside funds are introduced, the disproportionate influence of those with a great deal of money over those with less becomes a problem. To meet this problem our northern neighbors have done much the same as New York State has done, though to a greater degree.

Lets take another example:

Political parties in Iceland are not allowed to receive contributions exceeding 400,000 ISK a year, or $3400, from individual contributors. The key point in their law is that companies who share majority share holders, including spouses and immediate family of said share holders, count as individual contributors. This attempts to ensure that the same person or family does not donate many times the maximum amount through a string of “drawer corporations.”

The overall cost of an individual’s or party’s campaign for parliament may not exceed 1 million ISK plus a set amount per individual of voting age in the candidate’s district, which for a State Senate district in New York would come to about $200,000.

Though of course both Iceland and Sweden operate under a different governing system from New York State, their success in facilitating new political movements to take part in government and their success in diminishing big money influence over law makers are both things New York would do well to strive for as we examine changing our own campaign finance laws.

Everyone knows why we need a system of voter owned publicly financed elections in New York State and the country. The question is really: is there a leader strong enough, courageous enough, progressive enough and bold enough to make it happen, especially in a state like New York?

Andrew Cuomo has a lot on his plate. He said he wants to “clean up Albany,” and as Karen Scharff reminds us in her new alternative State of the State video, Governor Cuomo wants New York to be the “progressive capital of the nation.” On many of his policy positions (budget cuts to education, tax cuts for the wealthy), Cuomo will have his work cut out for him. But there is one – his support for a public financing of elections system – where he could get the credit deserved.

As Vanden Heuvel says at the end of her piece: Governor Cuomo, the people have your back, and the ball is in your court.

So will Cuomo come out first? Or – will the New York State Assembly, who has “led” this fight by introducing (the Speaker’s bill in fact) a public financing of elections bill, having over 50 cosponsors and passing it every year or so – be the first out of the gate in 2011?

Assembly members joined advocates this past Monday to call for Voter Owned Elections with public financing in light of the one year anniversary of Citizens United. Will those Assembly members and their leadership be stronger, more courageous, more progressive and bolder and introduce and pass a public financing bill now instead of June?

Some of the answers to these questions are up to you. Indeed, even without publicly financed campaign, it’s still the strong, courageous, progressive, bold PEOPLE who lead our politicians. Contact Cuomo and your Assembly person today, and join the campaign to make voter owned elections a reality in New York.

This Friday, January 21, 2011, marks the one-year anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. The Citizens United decision allowed corporate special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.

“Last year when the Supreme Court struck down 100 years of campaign finance law with it’s Citizens United decision, many feared the worst. And the 2010 elections showed that those fears were well placed,” said Karen Scharff, Executive Director of Citizen Action of New York.

“The unprecedented amount of secret outside spending by corporate e special interests made a bad system worse, leaving the public feeling even more removed from their democracy. Lawmakers in Albany have a chance to put New York voters back in charge and restore trust in government by enacting public financing of elections,” said Scharff.

Recent polling conducted by the Siena Research Institute showed that 70 percent of New Yorkers support public financing of elections. Governor Cuomo showed his support for changing the way elections are financed in his State of the State address and lawmakers in Albany should heed the call.

“The voters have spoken. It’s time for our leaders in Albany to lead on the issue that will restore our state government to one that is of, by, and for the people—not bought and paid for by wealthy special interests,” Scharff added.

Post-Citizen United spending in the 2010 elections:

• Nationwide, outside groups spent more than $480 million to influence the outcome of the midterm elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
• A report by the Washington Post and analysis from Public Campaign estimates that House and Senate candidates spent $2 billion in the 2010 election cycle, a 54 percent increase over 2008.
• A report by NYC Public Advocate Bill de Blasio’s office showed that Citizens United spending represented 15% of all political spending in the 2010 elections nationwide, and was responsible for $85 million spent in US Senate races.
• In New York, close to $246 million was raised in the 2010 elections, according to a recent report by NYPIRG, Common Cause, Citizens Union, and the League of Women Voters. Just 1/3 of the money raised was from individual donors.
• Only 59,350 residents of New York made donations to campaigns in 2010, just 0.3% of the population.

Citizen Action of New York, a statewide grassroots organization with over 20,000 members who fight for social, racial, economic, and environmental justice, has been the lead organization advocating for a system of public financing of elections in New York. Visit http://votersnotdonors.org for more information.

Our tax money inevitably contributes to policies with which we do not agree. We may, as the Poughkeepsie Journal reminds us, even find an elected’s policies to be detestable. However, in a vibrant marketplace of ideas and with the rule of law, Americans have consistently shown themselves faithful through a long series of peaceful transitions of power.

And this peaceful transfer of power is no small deed. History is replete with violent struggles and ploys. If a democracy is to remain tenable and stable, the majority can never stymy the guaranteed rights of the minority. Those in power, while wielding great power, cannot exercise it arbitrarily. With this constitutional guarantee, the United States have enjoyed both a prosperous and free society. I emphasize these points because in a greater sense–in a sense of a citizenry–public financing of elections helps to ensure elections stay focused on principles and voters.

In a sense, elections and voting may be our greatest public good. As the president of our national affiliate, US Action, William McNary reminds us, “We are the government.” If a candidate garners enough grass roots support, then we as active participants of representative democracy should provide those without the monetary means to launch a modern campaign a way forward. Or especially for those with the monetary means, encourage them to opt into a system of public funds.

It is often remarked that money flows like water. In other words, money is an omnipresent concern. Public financing of elections recognizes the importance of money in running a campaign and in doing so, encourages candidates to reach out to more voters, encourages voters to engage back, and places money out squarely in the open. Right from the get-go, trust is more easily established. The resulting election can then be more aptly called “people-powered.”

Public financing of elections is an essential part of any plan intended to clean up New York’s political process. It’s give government back to voters, and not as we saw in the 2010 election cycle, allow big money special interest and corporations to run our elections.

Several good government groups released a report yesterday analyzing the campaign finance system for the 2010 election period for statewide and state legislative candidates – examining how the campaign finance system in New York State operates and the inference it has on public policy.

The report shows that close to $245 million in campaign money was spent in this past election. $83 million of that money was given by “individuals.”

Corporations contributed 3 times as much as unions. The report shows that some contributors may have given $94,200 to party committees and several “individual” donations were close to $150,000.

What is even more unsettling about the “individual donors” in this report is that most were not New York State residents. A total of 8,750 out of 68,059 “individuals” who donated to candidates and parties were not New York State residents. 4,050 out 0f 443,154 “individuals” who donated to legislative candidates on the general election ballot were also not New York State residents.

At the end of this report, there is an analysis of plausible solutions that can help give elections back to the public and out of the hands of corporations.

We need a public financing structure that makes sure our voices, our main concerns, and our interests come before corporations.

Thank you to New York Public Interest Research Group, Common Cause, League of Women Voters, and Citizens Union for producing this report. It shows the need for a new system for financing campaigns in New York. We hope that Governor Cuomo will fulfill that need this year.

Capital Investments 2010

But we, the public, know just how much more pervasive corporate interests are over the public’s interest in our state and federal government. The foundations of trust and respect have been shattered by the current system’s dependence on high doses of corporate donations.

Thank you Senator Bradley for your encouraging words. We couldn’t agree more. Let’s hope that our Governor-elect, Andrew Cuomo, reads these words and is moved by them. During his campaign, he voiced strong support for ethics reform, but we’ll need to wait and see a if he is serious about changing the culture in Albany. Such a systematic change must include public financing of elections.

New Yorker’s have been promised reform before. Will Andrew Cuomo come through for us? We certainly hope so.

Let Gov.-elect Cuomo know YOU support public financing of elections for New York by downloading and sending this holiday card to Cuomo now. Don’t have time to print and mail - click here to sign our online petition.