This election in Oregon, which includes two proposals that would change our election systems, reminds us to think seriously about what election reforms we truly need.
There is no real value to Measure 64 save its naked purpose: weakening organized labor–which has the primary funding opponent to Sizemore’s initiatives in the past–along with the consequence — unintended or otherwise, or limiting some nonprofits’ ability to be heard. Whatever one thinks about the role of organized labor (I, for one, am a fan of the weekend…even if I rarely take full advantage of it), Measure 64 is not “Campaign Finance Reform” by any justifiable definition of any real campaign finance reformer. OLCV offered an interesting take. And of course the no campaign has a website: with more data than I have: www.NoOnMeasure64.com. Sizemore is using a political line to fool those in favor of real campaign finance reform into voting for his measure, and we shouldn’t let the brand of an important movement get sullied by clever word play.
Measure 65 is a closer question. Frankly, I don’t think any of the proponents or opponents can be sure it’ll play out. On the good side, I can imagine a shaken up political conversation which might shake loose some cross-cutting innovative policy. On the bad side, I can imagine more expensive campaigns, informal smoke-filled pre-primaries, leading to even greater influence from the folks who typically pay the freight.
I haven’t taken a position on Measure 65, and the Bus has had different board members weighing in on different sides. We’ve fostered debate about the issue, and hopefully the current debate will be a beginning of a redesign of voting systems, rather than the end. (For my part, I don’t think we’ll fix much until we engage more people in the process and address the money stuff a bit; the influence of interest groups doesn’t come primarily from the order of the primaries, but from the resources they martial.)
There is real election reform needed. The massive participation of small and mid-size donations to Barack Obama reminds us that the best election reform is an active, engaged democracy – which includes lots of people donating and lots of people volunteering. At the same time, the vast bulk of candidates at various levels haven’t written bestsellers, been on Oprah, or spoken at a National Convention.
We should recognize that a critical progressive priority is opening up access to the levers of political power and democracy, and there are real ways to do that. They include:
Voter Access: Democracy works better if more people do it.
* Same Day Registration: The data shows that it’s the best way to increase voter participation, and both Blue and Red states have seen participation growth from it. This should be promising to Oregon, which in 2004 tied Kansas for the nation’s biggest gap in voter turnout between older and younger voters. The Oregonian recently editorialized in favor of it, and it’d be the single biggest thing we could do for voter access.
* Online registration: it might put some on-the-street registration programs (like the Bus’s) largely out of business, but it’d almost certainly be good for participation. Washington State has enacted it; this election will offer us some results.
* Dumping double majority rules: The current ballot has a good proposal – Measure 56 – that moves us to a simple majority rule for passing local levies. We should pass that and get back to good ol’ democracy.
* Automatic registration: Minnesota has instituted automatic “opt out” registration, where people get registered automatically upon getting a drivers license or state I.D. Double majority rules are a disincentive for automatic registration; we should dump double majority rules and institute automatic registration.
Real Campaign Finance Reform:
* A mechanism for public finance – “Patriot Dollars.” Coupla Yale Law guys with the most innovative idea on campaign finance around.
* Limits? Oregon is one of the only states in the union that has no caps on political contributions. And while the wrong sort of cap creates challenging rules that only political elites can navigate, surely some limits could be sensible.
This is not a call to “get the money out of politics” — indeed, the system needs money to communicate message. Think about how much Coke spends to sell a sweet drink, which you can buy at any time of day, during any time of year, in millions of locations, and it gives you a sweet taste on your lips. Voting, on the other hand, must be done at a specific time, generally in a select number of places, and for most it offers no sweet taste. How much should we spend to market that? Rather, we need to be careful about the sources of that money, and what it’s buying.
If we want our public conversation to yield the public interest, there are real reforms to push. Let’s have this election cycle remind rather than distract us from that goal.