Op-Ed at Nassau Community College, NY

Writing op-eds and submitting them to school and local papers is a great way to generate attention to a variety of issues and their connections with money in politics. Above is an op-ed written by Andrew Calderaro at Nassau Community College.

Democracy MATTERS: Remembering 9/11 with Reform

By Andrew Calderaro

In a poll conducted last year by Lake Research and Bellwether Research, 82% of likely voters believed that overwhelming change would result from publicly funded elections (as opposed to the current system of private financing). Although lower, 52% viewed Congress as unethical and 66% asserted lobbyists were unethical. While many incidents could be used to dignify proposed campaign finance reform, the anniversary of September 11, 2001 is one event above all others that should compel us to rethink our electoral process.

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American populace of the growing military-industrial complex. What he meant to say, though advised not to, was the military-industrial-congressional complex. The roughly 3,000 who perished in the Twin Towers, the nearly 3,800 soldiers who have died and close to 30,000 who have been injured in Iraq are numbers that pale in comparison to the profits made by military contractors for contracts awarded by Congress for services in Afghanistan and Iraq -- i.e. Kellogg, Brown and Root alone (a former subsidiary of infamous Halliburton) received over $11,000,000,000 in contracts by 2004 -- a result of the very phenomenon Eisenhower foreshadowed nearly a half-century ago. This anniversary, we must consider not only the military-industrial-congressional complex, but the entire system of privately financed campaigns and resort to a different sort of reflection with hard-line questioning: If getting elected to office requires millions of dollars and much of this money is paid by the corporations benefiting from laws and government contracts, who do laws and decisions like whether or not go to war in the first place favor? How does this affect our democratic ideals? Most important, how is this epidemic to be solved?

Elected office has historically been for the wealthy and those with access to the requisite financing. According to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), during the 2004 election cycle the average cost to win a seat in the House of Representatives exceeded $1 million; to win a seat in the more exclusive senate typically ran a candidate over $7 million. Of course, some candidates were fortunate enough to spend a little less, though others doled out a bit more than the average. For example, Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) spent well over $3 million in 2006; in 2004 Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) raised nearly $14 million; in 2006 Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) spent close to $41 million, and the list goes on.

Despite the alienation of the poor and those of moderate means from elected office, self-financing of campaigns is seldom relied upon. Candidates turn to private contributions from individuals and political action committees (PACs - private organizations formed to elect a candidate, usually on behalf of a corporation or special interest). The Center for Responsive Politics reported that in 2004, PACs from the top ten contributing military contractors spent $8.17 million. In 2000, these same groups spent nearly $60 million to lobby the federal government.

Campaign contributions are funneled to all the right recipients. For example, the defense sector naturally targets members of the Armed Services Committee both of the House and the Senate. During the 2006 election cycle Committee Chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) added nearly $250,000 to his war chest; Senator Bill Nelson's (D-FL) campaign efforts were aided by a $178,000 boost; not to be outdone, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) received $275,000, and so on. In turn, they're expected to support and even draft legislation that aides their contributors. Given this, it is no surprise that the top ten donating military contractors -- Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Co., United Technologies, Honeywell International, SAIC Inc., and DRS Technologies -- received over $82 billion in federal
contracts in 2003 alone.

When there is this much money and power involved in military contracts and running for office, there is an incentive not to merely go to war, but to stay at war. The U.S. citizen must ask himself: Why wouldn't the U.S. go to war? Further, what other aspects of our lives can the powerful benefit from exploiting?

The defense sector is just one of many engaged in this political symbiosis. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that on a list of top campaign contributors from all sectors dating back to 1990, the highest ranking military contractor is Lockheed Martin -- at 36th. Thought that FedEx was content with simply delivering that birthday present from your aunt halfway across the country? It ranks 21st on the list. Next time you dig into a bowl of Kraft's creamy mac & cheese, don't forget that Kraft's parent company, the Altria Group, ranks 16th. At the top is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which has donated nearly $40 million in the past 15 years, including substantial support for John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.

With substantial sums of money exchanging the hands involved in our electoral process, it is only natural that some measures of regulation have been put in place. President Theodore Roosevelt was the first mainstream champion of reform, though his turn-of-the-century efforts were far from comprehensive. It wouldn't be until the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the creation of the Federal Election Commission in 1975 that oversight of campaign contributions would gain greater notoriety. More recently, presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) sponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, and the currently Democraticly lead 110th Congress passed certain regulations shortly after taking office. All of these efforts however, have proven porous and ineffectual in averting corruption and shadow relationships like the military-industrial-congressional complex. What is necessary is full public financing of campaigns, an immerging solution in the form of Clean Elections.

Clean Elections is a compelling alternative to the current campaign finance system. It is a voluntary system of full public financing that offers all citizens the opportunity to run a viable campaign, while freeing the electoral process from dependency on private funding. While this may seem too good to be true, Clean Elections should not be chalked up as some grandiose utopian ideal. Many localities have already implemented the Clean Elections system, and it is thriving in statewide elections in Maine and Arizona, and in some form in New Mexico, Vermont, North Carolina, the cities of Albuquerque and Portland, OR. Connecticut will offer Clean Elections starting in 2008. Remarkably, according to Fair Elections: A Practical Guide to Full Public Funding of Congressional Elections, in 2006 78 percent of Maine's candidates used the Clean Elections system; in Arizona, 58 percent of general election candidates participated, including Gov. Janet Napolitano (D).

To participate, all one must do is prove he or she is a viable candidate by collecting a small number of Qualifying Contributions, usually $5 per donor. After the satisfactory amount (as deemed by the state or locality) has been collected, private donations end. The candidate then begins to receive public financing from a Clean Elections commission for the primary election and, if he or she wins, for the general election as well. For example, Maine Clean Elections candidates in a gubernational contest receive primary election funding equal to 50% of the general election allocation. State representative and state senate candidates receive primary funding equal to 30% - 40% of the general election allocation. If a participating candidate is facing a privately or self-funded opponent with an exorbitant war chest, the commission will dole out "fair fight" funds to strengthen the Clean Elections effort.

Many non-profit, non-partisan lobbies and think tanks were created to see Clean Elections established in more cities and states. Democracy Matters was founded for just this purpose and has been thriving since its inception. Started in 2001 at Colgate University in upstate New York by alum and NBA player Adonal Foyle, Democracy Matters has taken the college community by storm. To date there are nearly 100 college chapters from New York to Hawaii. Luckily for Nassau Community College, Long Island's first Democracy Matters chapter was established on campus this semester. With an exciting hands-on agenda planned, Democracy Matters at NCC will further educate the college community about the current state of America's electoral process and how Clean Elections can effect change. In time, this chapter will have proven to be one of the instruments of change in the Clean Elections effort. Any student can become involved; indeed, there is no better time to consider participating.