Public financing of campaigns will limit free speech. Take if from someone who’s been there.

The California State Assembly recently passed a measure by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) that would provide for public financing of political campaigns at the state level. My personal experience with public financing has convinced me that it is nothing more than an attempt by liberals to restrict the free speech of conservative candidates.

According to the LA Times:

"Everybody's worn out by this incessant fund-raising, the ceaseless dialing for dollars" the bill's author, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), told me. "Everybody knows that it skews the system. Who do we work for? The people pay our salary. But then we are dependent on special interests to get elected."

Her solution — a product of the California Clean Money Campaign — would be strictly voluntary. Candidates could opt to let the public pay for their campaigns if they agreed to very tight spending limits. There'd be exceptions for candidates being trampled by big-bucks bullies.

For example, an Assembly candidate would be entitled to $150,000 during a general election. But if an opponent raised private money and outspent the "clean" candidate — or if the "clean" guy was attacked by an independent committee — another $750,000 in public funds would be available.

For a gubernatorial candidate, there'd be a base $10 million for the general election, plus $50 million to match some rich rival or an independent hit squad.

There are varying estimates about what this would cost taxpayers, ranging from $100 million to $134 million a year. But don't bother memorizing figures.

The proposal will change. Sponsors hope to negotiate a final bill in a two-house conference committee. If passed and signed by the governor, it would be placed on a statewide ballot.

As a candidate for the Sacramento City Council in 2004, I (a conservative Republican in a heavily Democrat district) was the first candidate ever to qualify for their matching funds public financing program. And while there were many technical issues with the implementation of the program, it was (for the most part) non-partisan and fair. However, it was after the election was completed, and I had lost that the true dangers of public financing would become evident.

As a part of the agreement to receive the matching funds, candidates had to agree to have their books audited after the campaign was completed. I figured that I had nothing to hide, so why not. Well after the audit was completed and the auditor concluded that I had fully complied with all federal, state and local ordinances; my opponent in the election, Democrat Sandy Sheedy proceeded to attack the findings and attack me personally. Read “What a Sheedy thing to do!” for the details. But it was not her unfounded accusations that I took issue with most, but the suggestions that she and other members of the council made for the next round of public financing.

1. Force candidates to sign the “Voluntary” Fair Campaign Practices Pledge.
2. Restrict the types of expenditures for which the funds could be used.
3. Prohibit funds from being used for “Negative” campaign or “hit” pieces.
4. Prohibit contributions from outside the city.

In other words, the program they claimed would level the playing field for non-incumbent, viable candidates would actually be used to muzzle those candidates, controlling what public positions they can take on controversial issues, prohibiting them from mentioning their opponent’s record and limiting who can support their candidacy.

Supporter of the bill currently before the legislature accurately state that it does not contain any limitations on speech and how the money can be spent. However, you can be sure that should it get the 2/3 vote it needs to pass the legislature, “The Anti-Family /Anti-God Caucus” will waste no time approving restrictions on those who oppose same sex marriage, homosexual indoctrination in schools and the war against Christianity in the public square. Think not?

Consider the resurrection of Leland Yee’s bill to blackmail candidates into limiting their ability to address homosexuality and transgender issues in their campaigns. AB 1207, which formerly dealt with business and professions code related to alcoholic beverages was gutted and amended to include the language from AB 866, which was vetoed by the governor last fall. Imagine the impact this measure would have on campaigns if money was tied to it?

There is only one cure for the impact of big money on politics; an informed and active electorate.

And there simply no way to legislate that!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com