July 21, 2007
Saturday

Dear Editor,

I want to second Senator Elton's argument that "the amount [of public funds] spent on Clean Election campaigns is more than recouped because state budget decisions are not subtly or unsubtly influenced by the many special interests that now largely finance our elections." To help put this in perspective the following are some numbers which illustrate this point at the national level.

Former U.S. Senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson have been touring the country in a bipartisan effort to promote public financing of Congressional elections and they note that a system of full public financing for all such elections would only cost about $1.8 billion a year. By contrast, in 2006 the Congress passed approximately $64 billion of our tax dollars in what are commonly called "earmarks." They conservatively estimate that at least a third of that ($20+ billion) was not for the "common good" or "general public welfare" but rather to reward one special interest or another. Stopping such spending would thus save over 10 times the cost of the Clean Money system.

For this reason, I sometimes refer to Clean Money bills as "Budget Relief" legislation.

Craig Dunkerley
craig[at]craigdunkerley.com
San Jose, CA

Received July 19, 2007 - Published July 21, 2007

About: "I am Southbay Coordinator for the California Clean Money Campaign"

Related Viewpoint:

Clean elections bill, initiative on the table By Senator Kim Elton - Juneau, AK

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2007
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska