|
Jeffords’
Proposals Fall Short
True Campaign Finance Reform Requires Public Funding
August 21, 2000
Contact: Rick Hubbard (802) 253-8544
[STOWE, VT] -
Candidate for U.S. Senate Rick Hubbard today stated, “Vermonters
shouldn't be misled. Even if fully adopted, national campaign finance
reform proposals advocated by Sen. James Jeffords do not go far enough to
stop Congress from its shameless sale of legislation to benefit special
interests.”
Hubbard asks Vermonters to consider the following example: From 1991
through June 1997 the pharmaceutical industry gave big money to lawmakers
of both political parties. Congress passed legislation giving the
pharmaceutical industry extra years of patent protection. Thus, we pay
higher prices for brand-name drugs rather than cheaper generic
substitutes, costing us as much as $550 million a year.
These big pharmaceutical contributions came from three sources: $8.4
million in soft money from corporate checkbooks (eliminating these
donations is at the heart of the McCain/Feingold legislation supported by
Jeffords); $10.2 million in Political Action Committee donations, which
remain legal under McCain/Feingold; and individual contributions from
checkbooks of pharmaceutical executives.
Industry executives have tremendous incentive to give the $1,000 maximum
to candidates to get access and attention in Congress. Individual giving
extends deep into the executive ranks within each company, and is
multiplied by the number of companies within the industry. Now we have
very serious money. Individual contributions remain legal under McCain/Feingold.
Incumbent candidates want this money to gain advantage over their
challengers. For this reason, Congress has tremendous incentive to please
these special interests, and this is where our political system goes
wrong.
According to Hubbard, the test for whether the McCain/Feingold
legislation, or any proposed solution, will fully solve the problem should
be this: “Will these measures alone, if our political system remains the
same in other ways, change the incentive Congress now has to please these
big special interest contributors at the expense of our common interests
as citizens?”
If $8.4 million in soft money is prohibited but the $10.2 million plus the
large individual contributions remain, have we really eliminated the
incentive Congress has to please the pharmaceutical industry?
Hubbard says “We can and must provide our representatives with
incentives to pass legislation on behalf of all citizens. We must remove
the influence of special-interest money and replace it with public
financing. This requires an average annual investment from our public
treasury of about $10 per American family, or about $1 billion. Passing
legislation on behalf of all citizens can annually keep as much as $500 to
$1,000 in the pockets of each family, rather than transferring it to
special interests. This is a return on investment of 50 to 100 times.”
Consider one other example of how public financing would keep money with
citizens. Congress took contributions from the broadcasting industry and,
four years ago, gave away a new digital part of the public airways for
free to existing broadcast companies.
The Federal Communications Commission estimates that auctioning off the
right for broadcasting companies to make money using public airways for
digital transmission would have brought about $70 billion into our federal
treasury.
According to Hubbard, “that's an average cost of
$700 per American family that could have been prevented by an investment
of $10 per family. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of savings.”
Other benefits for American citizens go well beyond the money saved.
Repairing our democracy and restoring faith and trust in our elected
representatives and institutions of government provide priceless benefits
to us and our children today and to future generations of American
citizens.
Hubbbard says, “the McCain/Feingold legislation advocated by Jeffords is
a part, but without public financing for all House and Senate candidates,
it will fail to achieve its reform goals.”
A more detailed discussion of these issues is available on his website at
www.rickhubbard.org.
|