This week's decision by the Supreme Court, striking down the spending and contribution limits in Vermont's public financing law, is a good time to reflect on why so many Americans want clean elections through public financing.  Money distorts and corrodes politics in many different ways.  Today, with June 30th filing deadlines approaching in federal and many state elecitons, one in particular is on my mind: the wealth primary.

Early in the 20th century, "white primaries" excluded black voters from determining party nominees in many states.  They were considered legal under the theory that they were not "state action" - primaries were a private function carried out by party clubs, so equal protection did not apply.  In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court ruled "white primaries" unconstitutional, by reinterpreting "state action" to apply to processes that were clearly such a critical part of the electoral process.  Being allowed to vote in the general election, but not to select your party's nominee, was an incomplete right to vote, and equal protection did apply.

Whites-only primaries are gone, but we still have another process that excludes whole classes of people from a critical part of the electoral process: Wealth primaries.  At first, poll taxes were used to explicitly prevent the poor from voting, and these too were ruled unconstitutional.  Over the years, another process has taken their place.  Before a single vote is cast, candidates must raise money from private donors.  Party leaders, and the press, look at the numbers, and candidates who haven't raised enough are written off.  Dismissed as "not credible".  Not covered on the front page, or much at all.  In some cases, even pressured by party leaders to drop out of races.

I'm particularly sensitive to the wealth primary this year because of recent campaigns where I live (near Boston).  At the beginning of this year, we had four candidates running for District Attorney, an open seat.  One of those candidates was a state senator, and multiple candidates began running for his seat.  One of those was a state representative, as was one of the candidates for DA, opening up two seats in the House for new candidates.  And then, one by one, candidates dropped out of these races because they couldn't raise enough money to keep up with their opponents.  There is now just one candidate for DA.  The state senator decided to run for re-election, and all other candidates for his senate seat dropped out.  Both state reps are also running for re-election.  Now, I support most of these candidates.  Nevertheless, at least four elections were all decided by contributors before any votes were cast!

Unlike white primaries, wealth primaries don't keep anyone from voting to select the party nominee.  What they do is reserve the process of selecting who will run primarily for the wealthy.  A single donor who can afford to give $500 is worth as much as ten donors who can only afford $50.  A single donor who can afford to give $2,000 is worth as much as a hundred donors who can only afford $20.  In the Wealth Primary, it's one dollar, one vote.

This is also on my mind because I work for the man who developed legal theory behind the "wealth primary" argument, John Bonifaz.  He founded the National Voting Rights Institute partly to advance this in the courts, and it was largely on the basis of this work that the MacArthur Foundation awarded him a fellowship, commonly knows as a "genius award".  He was a co-counsel in the defense of Vermont's public financing law.

Ironically, Bonifaz himself is in a wealth primary right now.  As a new challenger running against a 12 year incumbent for secretary of state, it's sometimes a struggle to get the press to pay attention.  In a healthy democracy, Bonifaz's expertise in election law and long history of effective voting rights advocacy both nationally and athome would be enough to mark him a credible candidate worth serious attention.  But given his incumbent's 7-figure campaign warchest, Bonifaz's "credibility" will be determined, in the eyes of the press, by how much money people contribute before tomorrow's filing deadline.

Let's work hard to eliminate wealth primaries by instituting public financing of elections.  But in the meantime, if you can afford to participate, your favorite candidates need your support today.

There's more...

Cos works for John Bonifaz for Secretary of State in Massachusetts.

Matt and Chris have invited me to cover election reform and voting rights on MyDD - issues I have bloggedabout here already.  By way of introduction, I want to address the biggest political problem I've seen plaguing the election-reform netroots.  On Daily Kos and MyDD, on the Democratic Underground Election Reform forum, on the email lists of local and regional Democracy for America and Progressive Democrats of America groups, I see this cry repeatedly:

What good does it do to support candidates?  With those Diebold machines, they can steal any election.  It's pointless to compete in elections when the votes won't be counted.

I understand the concern.  I've been organizing and campaigning against computer voting machines for several years.  I've collected signatures for verified voting petitions and helped organize a press conference, successfully lobbied Representatives to support Rush Holt's audit bill, and seen Bev Harris' 2 hour presentation in person and stayed for the Q&A.  On election day, 2004, I was at the Election Protection coalition's call center in Broward County, Florida, as VerifiedVoting.org's TechWatch volunteer, taking calls from voters and poll watchers about touchscreen voting machine problems.  I left Fort Lauderdale that night with a queasy feeling, and no confidence that the votes would be accurately counted.  So I'm somewhat familiar with this issue, and it does concern and disturb me.

The problem I have with the attitude I see from some election reform advocates - the attitude I paraphrased above - is that, in its extreme absolutism, it is deeply cynical.  It is nihilistic.  Rather than challenge us to work to solve the problem, it calls on us to throw up our hands in despair, to eschew the most powerful tool we have, and to cry out to the wilderness, "why won't anyone pay attention?"

In the past few years, I've volunteered and worked on a number of progressive campaigns.  I've canvassed, been a poll watcher, been a precinct captain, and ran a citywide get out the vote operation.  I've participated in a hand recount, and seen an election for Democratic State Committee go to a tie because several precincts didn't count write-in votes.  In another election, college students were challenged at the polls, and the number of legitimate voters turned away were almost enough to swing the election.  And I've learned something: There is nothing, not even money, that candidates and elected officials fear or respect more than votes.

Electoral politics is the strategy through which we pursue change in this country.  Just because the voting machines being used are unreliable or buggy, doesn't mean they'll throw every election, or even most elections.  Just because they have poor security and can be hacked, doesn't mean all, or even most elections, will be stolen.  If you run for Democratic State Committee or county committee, will Republicans sweep in to steal the election?  I've seen state representative elections decided by 93 votes, by 64 votes - and it is exactly these local and state officials who can solve the sort of mundane problems I observed.

That same election day in 2004, just to the north of me, incumbent Palm Beach County supervisor of elections Therese LePore was defeated by challenger Arthur Anderson, who campaigned against paperless voting.  He won 91,134 to 85,601, a margin of victory of 5,533 votes.

If we want to reform elections, we need to elect reformers to run our elections.  John Nichols' recent article in The Nation, Fighting for a Fair Vote, highlights a new crop of "Champions of Democracy" running to do just that: Mark Ritchie in Minnesota, Debra Bowen in California, Jennifer Brunner in Ohio, and John Bonifaz in Massachusetts, all running for secretary of state.  If the state of our elections disturbs you, don't throw up your hands and cry, "what's the use?".  Support reformers like these, and get them elected.

Me?  I'm working for John Bonifaz as his campaign blogger.

There's more...

This should be my "Day 2" post, but I got home from the convention later and more exhaused than I'd expected, and I'm not up to the task of writing something well organized about all of the things I should write about.  So, instead, a brief summary of the how the votes played out and what they meant now, and the rest of my stories later.

I spent part of the day in the press room with fellow Massachusetts lefty bloggers who were liveblogging the convention: Charley at Blue Mass Group, Lynne at Left in Lowell, and Andy at Mass Revolution Now! (Follow those links for the day's running commentary.)

For background on the candidates, read my post on day 1.  The 1st ballot results...

Governor

Deval Patrick: 58.0%
Tom Reilly: 26.7%
Chris Gabrieli: 15.4%

Lt. Governor

Tim Murray: 49.0%
Andrea Silbert: 28.9%
Deb Goldberg: 22.0%

Secretary

Bill Galvin: 70.7%
John Bonifaz: 29.3%

The expectations and the drama...

There's more...

cos is at the MA Democratic Party Convention, and is covering it for MyDD.  His first post is below.  I love conventions.

There's more...

Friday, June 2nd - Some things don't change: When I was in college, the LGBT group on campus always had the best parties.  Here at the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention, MassEquality has the best party.  Another pattern I've noticed: Everywhere I go in Worcester, MA seems to have a free wireless network.  Is this what municipal wi-fi would be like?

The first day of the state convention officially closed several hours ago.  Swirling rumors notwithstanding, nothing exciting happened aside from Ted Kennedy and George McGovern's speeches.  Today, the party voted on the uncontested candidates for Democratic nominations for statewide office: Ted Kennedy for US Senate, Joe DeNucci for Auditor, Tim Cahill for Treasurer, and Martha Coakley for Attorney General.  All of them will be on the ballot, with the party's endorsement.

The real excitement will wait for tomorrow, when delegates vote on contested races.  Each candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary, needs at least 15% of the vote to be on the September primary ballot; in each race, one candidate will get the convention endorsement with the support of more than 50% of the delegates.  Among the candidates are Matt Stoller's favorite politician Deval Patrick, and the candidate I work for, John Bonifaz.  And for all three offices, the outcome is uncertain.

The new progressive grassroots/netroots movement that sprang up nationally during the 2003 Democratic presidential primary campaign got a head start here in Massachusetts with Robert Reich's run for Governor in 2002.  At the 2002 convention, progressives pulled an upset by getting Reich on the ballot.  Since then, we've learned a lot, and competed in many campaigns.  This is is the first nominating convention (held every 4 years) since the Reich vote, and a test of how far we've come.  Here's what we're looking forward to tomorrow...

There's more...