Larson to Introduce Fair Elections Now Act

On Monday, Congressman John Larson and National President and CEO of Common Cause, Bob Edgar, will be having a press conference and blogger availability in Connecticut to introduce the Fair Elections Now Act. According to Common Cause and the Fair Elections Now Coalition (.pdf), under the act:

Under the Fair Elections Now Act, federal candidates would run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from the constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want.

  • Candidates would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100.
  • To qualify, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives would have to collect 1,500 contributions from people in their state and raise a total of $50,000.
  • Since states vary widely in population, a U.S. Senate candidate would have to raise a set amount of small contributions amounting to a total of 10% of the primary Fair Elections funding [$82,500 in CT]. The number of qualifying contributions is equal to 2,000 plus 500 times the number of congressional districts in their state [4,500 in CT].
  • Qualified House candidates receive $900,000 in Fair Elections funding, split 40% for the primary and 60% for the general.
  • [For the Senate:] Qualified candidates receive $1.25 million plus another $250,000 per congressional district in their state [$2.5 million in CT]. The funding is split 33% for the primary and 67% for the general election.
  • [Additional monies are available as follows:] Donations of $100 or less from in-state contributors would be matched by four dollars from the Fair Elections Fund for every dollar raised.
  • The total Fair Elections Funds available is strictly limited to three times the initial allocation for the primary, and again for the general [an additional $2.7 million (for a total of $3.6 million) for House elections and an additional $7.5 million (for a total of $10 million) in a CT Senate election], available only to candidates who raise a significant amount of small donations from their home state.
  • In addition, the act would prohibit joint fundraising committees, provide lower broadcast media rates (through a participation discount and vouchers), and allow leadership PACs (but with a low $100 per person per year contribution cap). It would be financed through a small fee on the largest federal contractors and through the auction of the remaining unused portions of the broadcast spectrum.

    A short summary provided by Congressman Larson’s office is provided below the fold…

    The Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act in the Senate and the Larson-Jones Act in the House would help restore public confidence in the Congressional election process by providing qualified candidates for Congress with grants, matching funds, and vouchers from the Fair Elections Fund to replace campaign fundraising that largely relies on large donors and special interests. In return, participating candidates would agree to limit their campaign spending to the amounts raised from small dollar donors plus the amounts provided from the Fund.

    This voluntary alternative would free participating candidates the incessant, time-consuming money chase that has tainted public perceptions of elected officials and that has fostered abuses that can undermine our democracy. Candidates could instead devote their time to effectively representing their constituents and to solving our nation’s critical problems.

    The Fair Elections Now Act amends the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 to establish a voluntary method for financing Senate campaigns. Fair Elections are composed of three stages:

    • To participate, candidates would first need to prove their viability by raising a minimum number and amount of small-dollar qualifying contributions from in-state donors. Once a candidate qualifies, that candidate must limit the amount raised from each donor to $100 per election.

    • For the primary, participants would receive a base grant that would vary in amount based on the population of the state that the candidate seeks to represent. Participants would also receive a 4-to-1 match for small dollar donations up to a defined matching cap. The candidate could raise an unlimited amount of $100 contributions if needed to compete against high-spending opponents.

    • For the general election, qualified candidates would receive an additional grant, further small-dollar matching, and vouchers for purchasing television advertising. The candidate could continue to raise an unlimited amount of $100 contributions if needed.

    Special rules would apply for runoff and uncontested elections. Participating candidates would receive enough funding to compete in every election, without having to spend most of their time raising money.

    At this critical moment in our nation’s history, our elected leaders in Washington must dedicate every available moment towards solving our nation’s challenges. Our leaders must have the trust of the American people that their decisions will benefit all Americans, not just the wealthy. Fair Elections would allow our leaders to focus on finding solutions to the challenges that all Americans face.

    Advertisements

    9 responses to “Larson to Introduce Fair Elections Now Act

    1. Since states vary widely in population, a U.S. Senate candidate would have to raise a set amount of small contributions amounting to a total of 10% of the primary Fair Electionsfunding. The number of qualifying contributions is equal to 2,000 plus 500 times the number of congressional districts in their state [4,500 in CT].

      So Dodd has 4 in-state contributors so far, not much of a head start…

      Would he have to give back the millions from out of state and lobbyists?

    2. Would the Fair Elections Act Now allow contributions from unions?

      Gosh, I hope so. Then it would be as fair as Connecticut’s campaign finance laws.

    3. Could you run a biased newspaper or radio station or tv station or blog to promote a candidate, or would that be deemed unfair?

    4. Mr. Reality

      I’m kind of surprised that the Gaffey thing didn’t get its own thread. I guess like the O’Rourke situation we shouldn’t be talking about it.

    5. I’m kind of surprised that the Gaffey thing didn’t get its own thread. I guess like the O’Rourke situation we shouldn’t be talking about it.

      Good point. It’s only the highest ever fine by the SEEC by an entranched, long-term incumbant.

      Maybe a thread will appear later?

    6. Could you run a biased newspaper or radio station or tv station or blog to promote a candidate, or would that be deemed unfair?

      I’m not sure what you mean, but the FEC has been clear in the past that supportive media falls under the media exception (blogs included) and does not count as an in-kind campaign contribution.

      I don’t see how this legislation would prevent regular old citizens (of the media (new or traditional) persuasion) from doing anything they wanted to do.

    7. I’m kind of surprised that the Gaffey thing didn’t get its own thread. I guess like the O’Rourke situation we shouldn’t be talking about it.

      Maybe they will share a jail cell and save us money?

    8. Maybe they will share a jail cell and save us money?

      Jail cell???

      Why should these guys get better treatment than those that violate the smoking regulations on mass transit get?

    9. Speaking of Common Cause, they’ve also cosigned a letter asking Members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s HR 1207 – Audit the Fed!

      125 members are on board so far, but none from CT.

      Jim Himes is a member of House Financial Services. Does he oppose transparency? Does he oppose good government?

      My Congressman Chris Murphy sent my dad a non-answer to my dad’s request for his support of 1207. And the other two pro-bailout members (DeLauro & Larson) also appear to oppose transparency and good government when it comes to The Beast known as the Federal Reserve. I’m guessing that CTs only anti-bailout Congressman (Courtney) hasn’t heard about it yet. I hope we have one sensible Congressman when it comes to transparency.

      Seriously… do they all agree with Dodd that revealing “sources and methods” of our intelligence services is less concerning than revealing the names of the Fed’s bailout recipients??

      And of course there’s Mr. Dodd and Mr. Lieberman… but they’re hopeless.

      See Common Cause’s friends in transparency here:

      http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=17664

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s