Excerpt from a Seven Days article written by Paul Heintz:
The first Vermont political candidate in a decade to secure public financing says he thinks all state elections should be funded by taxpayers.
Standing in front of Burlington’s iconic “Democracy” statue Thursday afternoon, Progressive lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Dean Corren argued that public election financing is the only way to reduce the influence of money in politics.
“Let me make my position clear: Big money is the opposite of free speech,” he said. “And when it dominates our elections, it is the opposite of democracy.”
To drive the point home, the former four-term Burlington state representative highlighted his opponent’s fundraising practices. Incumbent Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, raised 40 percent of his contributions when he ran for reelection in 2012 from those donating more than $100 and 43 percent from corporations and political action committees, Corren said.
“With big money putting up these kinds of numbers, it’s fair to ask who gets to speak, who gets listened to, who gets to call the tunes,” the Progressive said. “Everyone knows the answer to that question: It’s the one who pays the piper.”
Read the full article here.
There is no Democrat running for Lieutenant Governor for Vermont this year, so Corren and a Liberty Union Party candidate will face Republican incumbent Phil Scott. Thanks to American Third Party Report for the link.
I don’t trust the government to set a real playing field as far as that goes. They will probably in most cases set exclusionary criteria, as with ballot access, for the “public” money. I know they already did in Connecticut, at least.
Oh I agree, but if we’re playing devil’s advocate and saying we need to publicly finance campaigns because all the big money’s going to the wrong people, then divide that money that’s being donated among all the candidates instead of using stolen taxpayer money.
That is, if we’re really being honest about what the problem is.
Why the middle man? Let people make their own contributions directly, and divest government of the power that makes people want to give money to politicians and candidates.
The only kind of true “public funding” of campaigns I’d like to see would be voluntary. Perhaps citizens could choose to donate to an election fund, and then that money would be evenly distributed among all candidates.
For purposes of accuracy and truth in advertising, it shouldn’t be referred to as “public” funding.
“The public” funds campaigns already, when members of “the public” decide to voluntarily donate to those campaigns.
“Government funding” or “involuntary taxpayer funding” or “campaign welfare” are more accurate descriptors for what Corren wants.
This man is an idiot. No one running on a partisan ticket should be entitled to public money. I don’t want my money to be stolen and given to a crackpot commie thug or anyone else.