Group Presentation w/ NY Citizen Action - SUNY Binghamton, NY

I first began planning an event for the National Week of Action about a month in advance. I set my sights high, planning for two events—one on the main campus and one at the Downtown Campus of Binghamton University. I wanted each to be about an hour or two long with various activities and raffles. I also wanted to involve the community in some way. I didn’t realize at the time, but I set a very unrealistic goal for myself.

As the National Week of Action drew closer, I met with Citizen Action to organize these events. I figured with their help I could easily pull off two events. Upon meeting with them, we talked it over and decided on pooling all our resources for one event at the Downtown Center. The Downtown Center has been built very recently and generated substantial community interest. It would be the perfect place to gather both students and community members for a Clean Money event. I made the decision that night to have a smaller event on campus for the main purpose of spreading the word about the event at the Downtown Campus. This would be more reasonable a goal considering I really had no idea how to plan even one event.

So, with the help of Citizen Action and my group members, we designed an event that would be a sort of information session/press conference regarding Clean Money. I went to the Downtown Center shortly after this meeting (about two weeks before the Week of Action), and reserved the room for the event. After that, I had people from Citizen Action and my group meet at the room to go over some plans for organizing this event. We decided to set up booths representing stations with different materials that would serve to educate both students and community members.

After this initial step, I moved on to organizing the food, fliers, and materials for the tables. I coordinated with Citizen Action to split up some of the planning tasks. I would be in charge of spreading the word to students and getting them to attend and Citizen Action would work on creating interest within the community, the media and with local politicians.

To publicize the event on campus, I felt it important to pass out fliers and put an ad in the school newspaper. The ad ran on the Tuesday two days before the event, and the day before the event my group and I passed out over 250 fliers around campus. It was hard not to get discouraged by the mass apathy of the student body. However, it was encouraging to think that if even five out of the hundreds of people we talked to came to this event it was a success. I set my goal low. I decided I would be happy with 20 people total at my event. The room was sort of small and could look decently filled up with 20 people. I also envisioned people continuously coming and going.

On Wednesday, the day before the event, I went to take care of the food preparations. Food would be my biggest draw with the students, and I knew it had to be done right. With funding from Democracy Matters and Citizen Action, I was able to get subs and pizza. Citizen Action enlisted the help of a local politician, Barbara Abbott King, and had local news channels agree to cover the event.

On the day of the event, I arrived at the Downtown Campus two hours early to make sure everything went smoothly. I was concerned that students would not come from the main campus, which is kind of far from the Downtown Campus. It was also raining, and I thought that might keep some people away. My fears were never realized. The event went great. I’m not too sure how many students actually came from the main campus all the way to the Downtown Campus, but I did see a few students come in holding the fliers I passed out the day before. It also worked out perfectly because we planned on starting the event just as classes let out at the Downtown Campus and many people got out of class hungry and eager to have some free food.

The media covered the event, interviewed me and covered our press release.

http://www.wicz.com/fox40/video.asp?video=11%2D15%2D07+clean%2Ewmv

Barbara Abbott King really helped out with speaking on the issue of Clean Money and how it shaped her experiences running for office. Most of the food was eaten and everyone seemed to have a great time talking about Clean Money. I spoke to a few students about Clean Money as well and saw tons of people taking handouts, signing petitions, signing letters to politicians, and supporting our cause.

Dave Ugelow

Campus Coordinator

SUNY Binghamton

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.

A Different Kind of Numbers Campaign - St. Lawrence University, NY

St. Lawrence University's chapter of Democracy Matters recently organized a different kind of numbers campaign. We decided to focus on the number one billion, the estimated campaign cost for the 2008 presidential election. Instead of just posting flyers around the campus, our group brainstormed a new way to communicate this information to the student body.

Last year, a display in our student center attempted to raise awareness for rape and sexual harassment by stringing lines ofcolored T-shirts across the atrium, right where students walk everyday to eat, check their mail, attend events, or socialize with friends. With this idea in mind, our group came up with the idea of hanging strands of Democracy Matters bills across the student center atrium.

During one club meeting, we taped one thousand bills to strings, with the idea that each bill equaled one million dollars. This meant that the bills in our display represented one billion dollars. Our club spent some extra time that night hanging up the bills in long, drooping lines across the student center. The finished product was striking, obvious to anyone who walked through the student center. This display was accentuated with posters saying ONE BILLION, an explanatory sign in the student center, and emails
explaining the display.

Our goal was to educate people about the extravagant campaigning that is in our near future for the 2008 presidential election and the purpose of Democracy Matters. It seemed to spark an interest in some people, as many club members had discussions about the display with friends. One new person came to our meeting because of her interest in the display.

Altogether, the campaign was a success. We accomplished our goal of educating the campus about the existence of dirty money in politics. If we were to do it again, we could try to engage the campus more by holding campus discussions or a speaker on the subject of clean elections. We also could have more explanatory signs that were even more noticeable to the people passing through. However, for our first attempt at a different kind of numbers campaign, we are extremely pleased with the results. We would encourage other campuses to give it a try!

-Erin Griffin
St. Lawrence University

Op-ed Media Campaign - Kenyon College, OH

Op-eds and other forms of mass media are a great way to educate the public and deliver a message. All the East Coast college coordinators wrote op-eds about the mid-term election, corruption, and clean election reform and submitted them to their school paper and a local/community paper. The following op-ed was written by Karl Stark, campus coordinator at Kenyon College in Ohio. Enjoy!

According to the pollsters, newspapers, candidates and any radio show host, this year’s midterm elections were a “referendum on Iraq.” That may very well be. Approval ratings dropped without any policy change from the White House or the Hill, and challengers made it the nucleus of their campaigns.

But this year’s elections were about more than just Iraq. They were about more than rising health care costs, high unemployment and environmental concerns. The midterm elections were, quite simply, a referendum on accountability. It might have all started with Tom Delay, but it probably went back further than that, further than Verizion eavesdropping and Jack Abramoff. It goes back even further than Katrina. It started, ironically, with the Republican Party’s own: Newt Gingrich.

In 1994, Gingrich and the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years. Gingrich proposed his “Contract with America,” which promised the American people a smaller, more efficient, and more accountable government run by the Republican Party. “Tired of the pork-barrel politics?” Gingrich asked, “Give us a shot.” From then on, the public has held a watchful and disapproving eye over its politicians.

The events of the last two years have shown what happens when power is taken as an entitlement. As the Republican Party was able to pull off political victory after political victory, it became, in the eyes of its own members, more and more indestructible. And with House reelection percentages above 90% and the President having just wrapped the last campaign of his political career, there seemed to be little threat to the seats of power. This is exactly where the problem lies. The campaign cycles are kicking off earlier and earlier, to the point that many members are building their 2008 campaigns as we speak. Policy is secondary to fundraising. Instead of meeting with the National Education Association or the United Auto Workers, politicians are booking lunches with lobbyists and fat-walleted donors.

You’re thinking, “This isn’t news, so what’s the big deal?” Here’s the deal: I’m going to tell you how we fix it.

Currently in Maine and Arizona, and selected other races nationwide, public financing is the norm for political campaigns. Candidates, instead of being backed by affluent individuals, Political Action Committees, and lobbyists, are instead only financed through public contributions, each of which is capped to a predetermined per capita limit. On current national tax forms, individuals can select to have $3 placed into a national pot to help fund presidential candidates (FYI-the first candidate to ever refuse any public funding is…President Bush). The system of public financing for local and congressional races works similarly. That amount might be raised to $5 or $10, and would then be divided up between candidates who wished to use it. It is this optional nature which makes the system constitutional.

Public financing’s positive effects are staggering. For one, it levels the playing field for campaigns. It really makes the campaigns about the issues, as candidates cannot rely on hefty donations from Special-Interest groups to pay for high-profile TV commercials and mass mailings. Each candidate’s campaign is tied tightly to the public. In addition, politicians who are elected don’t have to worry about fund-raising once they’re in office, meaning that they can get down to business. Candidates who have run these “clean money” campaigns see their approval ratings jump.

Public financing isn’t just another “only in theory” campaign finance solutions. It is THE solution. It is being implemented nationwide. Last year, Connecticut passed new public financing legislation, and in Maine over 70% of the state government was elected through public financing. It can work, it will work, it DOES work.

Want more information on how to change politics in America? I’m Kenyon’s coordinator for Democracy Matters, a nationwide institution whose goal is to implement public financing across the country. It was, in fact, a Democracy Matters chapter that helped change Connecticut’s system. Reform is not just an election-year necessity, for real reform takes time, energy, and people. Email me at starkk@kenyon.edu, or visit www.democracymatters.org. Kenyon’s chapter will be showing a recent PBS documentary on clean elections, and we also hold regular meetings, so contact me to get involved!